News of the World publishes dangerous pictures of Max Mosley
Thanks to Alan
Max Mosley (son of Sir Oswald the fascist) was caught in a News of the World sting visiting a BDSM dungeon.
Film, widely available on the web, initially starting on the News of the Screws' own site, is censored with black squares on Max's bum and that of a girl he canes, but raises some interesting issues about the Dangerous Pictures Act.
Presumably, even if uncensored, the vids would escape the DPA because they weren't produced for purposes of sexual arousal but as part of a shock horror investigation of pervy Max.
Formula One boss Max Mosley lost a High Court bid to stop the News of the World from putting a video of him and five prostitutes back on its website.
Mr Justice Eady came to the conclusion that because the material has already been widely reported, and is still widely available, granting an injunction would serve no purpose.
Eady said: I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order
against this respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture.
Mosley was featured in a front page story by the Sunday paper which accused him of paying five prostitutes to dress in German Nazi-style uniforms and what look very like concentration camp uniforms for the S&M session.
Mosley, the son of British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, is taking the News of the World to court on privacy grounds - the two sides will be back in court in July.
The newspaper has only released a 95 second section of the video including clips of Mosley being beaten and enjoying a refreshing cup of tea after his five hour session. Mosley denies any Nazi connotations to the session.
Update: Formula 1 Circus Moves on to France
19th April 2008
A French judge will render a decision on April 29 on whether to ban a video showing Formula One chief Max Mosley cavorting with five prostitutes from being aired in France.
Mosley's lawyer Philippe Ouakrat said that the video "characterises a violation of his right to respect for his private life" and demanded that the tape be banned from being aired on French territory.
Following the very public revelation of his sexual predilections in March, Max Mosley, the president of the International Automobile Federation (FIA), faced calls for his resignation from Formula One racers and condemnation from the sport's
sponsors. But in a secret-ballot proceeding held in Paris, Mosley secured 103 of 169 votes to win a vote of confidence from motorsport's governing body — and the right to serve out his term as FIA president.
The ruling comes two months after the British tabloid News of the World posted video footage of Mosley reveling in what it described as a chilling Nazi-style sadomasochistic orgy with five hookers. In the video, a mock prison guard spanks
Mosley while explaining his punishment: He's serving a life sentence now for crimes he committed before. I'm sure it won't be the last time he's bent over that bench.
Mosley, who admitted to participating in the orgy, has initiated legal action against News of the World for claiming that his sadomasochistic romp had Nazi and concentration-camp connotations. He said he spoke with a German accent, ("She
needs more of ze punishment"), because the women involved were themselves German. (Mosley is the son of noted British fascist Oswald Mosley.) But his main argument, made in a letter to FIA officials prior to today's vote, is that his sex
life is irrelevant, as it harms no one.
Mosley has already promised not to make public appearances on behalf of the FIA, suggesting he has plans for a quiet end to his tenure, which expires in October 2009. The jokes and snickers will undoubtedly continue, but they're unlikely to drive
Mosley from office. He may be bruised, but, as he has already demonstrated, he has a high tolerance for pain.
Comment: An Orgy of Sensibility
Thanks to Alan
The Guardian has a column discussing animal sex with the message: N ot my cup of tea, but I can't pretend to be horribly shocked by it.
I wish the same sensible attitude would spread to the sports section, where the front page of the same edition had some vapourings about Max Mosley's "orgy" (i.e. mild sadomasochistic spanking fun) with five
"prostitutes" (i.e. professional dominatrices and submissives, at least one of whom has a website making it quite clear that clients shouldn't ask for "extras").
Offsite Comment: So what if Mosley played Nazi sex games
Let us be clear. Nazism was a tyrannical system of power that murdered millions of people. Max Mosley is a 68-year-old grey-haired businessman who played sado-masochistic sex games with prostitutes who were said to be dressed as concentration
camp inmates. She then stuck a camera in her bra and sold the tape to the NotW. He had consensual sex, he harmed no one, and he used highly paid, media-savvy prostitutes, not trafficked women. He even had a cup of tea with them afterwards.
Mosley's barrister argued that the orgy did not have Nazi connotations. But so what if it did? I have no problem with Nazi-style orgies, if they are consensual. I have a problem with Nazi-style genocides. Like the one that is happening in Darfur,
which is ignored, because we are too busy bleating that Mosley's sexual fantasies are gross, and reading Heat. You will find something gross in every bedroom.
I don't know how closely you've been following Max Mosley's case against the News of the World.
I suppose it creates a bit of a dilemma for Melon Farmers. For once,
I find myself in favour of censorship, because the rag had no business sticking its nose into Mosley's private life with its sanctimonious finger-wagging. There's a brilliant piece about this on Niki Flynn's site.
Have you been following the Max Mosley Affair? Shame on you if not, as it potentially affects all of us) into "sadomasochistic cruelty" (ie, consensual private CP play). This is UK gutter journalism at its absolute slimiest - an
unconscionable invasion of privacy and public humiliation by the Screws News of the World.
According to NotW's counsel, Sadomasochistic cruelty is contrary to civilised values and is corrupting of those involved. That's rich coming from the same rag that stalks celebrities and taps the phones of the Royal Family.
After a run of judgments establishing various parameters of what is “private”, Max Mosley is seeking punitive damages. Until now they have rarely exceeded four figures – Campbell, for example, got just £3,500. Some lawyers think that could
It could even be said the damages awarded for an invasion of privacy should be greater than for defamation, said one. With the latter your reputation is restored. With privacy the bringing of the action simply exacerbates the grievance.
Another has no doubt the effect would be wide-ranging: If he won a very large award it would have a very chilling effect on the press. We're already known as the libel capital of the world. We could become the privacy one too. Either
newspapers would have to start suppressing stories or I'm going to be getting a lot of business.
Certainly the long tradition – not always noble – of reputations splashed, trashed, and served up with a red top's eye for the prurient detail could ebb away if Mosley wins.
However, there would be other more disturbing implications, too, says Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship. It's what will happen in the future that we really need to worry about, she said. If the News of the World loses, it will be
more proof that we've ended up with a very serious law without any proper debate.
Who's to say, for example, if an influential public figure has a dubious private life, leaving their judgment open to question, whether it's permissible to publish the fact?
As Glanville says: It will make it more and more difficult to report on public figures even when their private lives are genuinely in the public interest. If Mosley wins, the rest of us will be living with the consequences long after the
dominatrices have fled.
Whatever turns them on? Inside the minds of the sadomasochists
The bondage community hopes Max Mosley's lawsuit will stop them being seen as perverts on the fringe of society
This trial is a good thing, said Deborah Hyde, spokeswoman for Backlash, which campaigns for BDSM rights.
We're finally getting the chance to talk to the media, who have ignored us for years. In Max Mosley we've got a man who says: 'This is who I am'. He's got expensive lawyers who can fight his case, but many others end up being dragged through
the family courts or in front of their employers. In Mosley, we have someone who is fighting our corner.
There's something so Dickensian about that word. Prostitute. And I just love the way it's being bandied about in the press these days, along with "orgy". Sells more papers, to be sure.
Max Mosley never wanted to be a crusader for the rights of fellow "perverts" or he'd have outed himself. But Ooze of the World decided to expose his private life and now the journalistic Eye of Sauron is turned on all of us.
Sex seems to be everywhere these days, yet the details of Max Mosley's privacy hearing have helped lift a veil on one type of sexual behaviour still shrouded in secrecy - sadomasochism.
Nobody knows how many people are involved in the "scene": a loose grouping of people across the country who enjoy an unorthodox - and under current laws potentially illegal - sexual lifestyle. However, one US study suggests 11% of women
and 14% of men have engaged in BDSM - an abbreviated acronym for bondage, discipline, domination, submission, sadism and masochism - activities.
If those figures are translated to the UK, it could mean around four million people have tried BDSM. A smaller, but still substantial, number has chosen to make it a "lifestyle choice".
More and more papers are adding their voices to the consensus that spanking play is normal, common, and harmless. More articles on spanking have been posted in the last week than ever before. The Daily Record recently ran an advice column on how
to seek out introducing healthy spanking play, and yesterday's Metro ran a story on Peter Jones, author of Confessions of a London Spank Daddy, which surely was only published because of the kink-curious climate provoked by the Mosley case, for
all that it studiously avoids mentioning it. Spanking has never been so fascinating to the UK press.
The Mosley case was hugely depressing to me at the time, not least because I was busy stressing about the new violent porn legislation which was passed a few weeks ago, and which groups all over the UK fought for years to prevent, criminalising
possession of images which appear to depict serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals. I didn't write about this legislation, either, because when it was passed I felt so disaffected, so disenfranchised, that I just didn't know what to say.
We'd campaigned and protested for months, and they'd passed it anyway.
The actual wording of the legislation is dangerously vague. Spanking and CP material isn't necessarily illegal, but given an unsympathetic judge armed with waffly, imprecise language, it could be. As a result, most of the individuals I know who
own spanking porn haven't changed their habits since the law was passed; but the film producers are getting increasingly antsy. Several times this year, ideas I've had for shoots which would have been perfectly fine a few months previously were
vetoed by nervous site owners who didn't want to risk it. Any caning on the breasts, for example, was deemed off-limits by one site owner unless it was so light as to be laughable. Face slapping was another no-no, although quite why when faces
aren't a part of the body listed in the new legislation, I have no idea.
Max Mosley won his case against the News of the World over the newspaper's allegations he had engaged in "Nazi style orgy" with five prostitutes.
In a powerful judgement, Mr Justice Eady, declared that however morally distasteful the public might find such activities, the press had no right to publish them as they did not constitute a 'significant' crime.
In his ruling the judge acknowledged the growing influence in British national life of the European Court of Human Rights, which gives people's privacy precedence over the right of the media to investigate them.
Lawyers claimed that the judgement effectively introduced a privacy law into Britain, even though Parliament has never passed one.
Mosley, the President of motor sport's governing body, was secretly filmed conducting a five hour sado-masochistic session at his Chelsea flat with the women, one of whom was the wife of an MI5 agent. As well as being published in the newspaper,
video footage of the session was then posted on the paper's internet site and viewed by 3.5m people
Mosley, the son of fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, sued the paper claiming they had breached his privacy.
The judge, in a passage which was seen by lawyers as a serious breach of press freedom, stated: It is not for the state or for the media to expose sexual conduct which does not involve any significant breach of the criminal law.
The fact that a particular relationship happens to be adulterous, or that someone's tastes are unconventional or "perverted" does not give the media carte blanche.
Mr Justice Eady also suggested that journalists would not be entitled to secretly film someone in order to catch them committing a crime.
The question has to be asked whether it will always be an automatic defence to intrusive journalism that a crime was being committed on a private property, however technical or trivial.
Would it justify installing a camera in someone's home, for example, in order to catch him or her smoking a spliff? Surely not.
Mosley won £60,000 damages - a record for a privacy case - with the judge ruling the paper had produced no evidence of a Nazi link. The newspaper now faces costs of £850,000.
Max Mosley's victory in the High Court should be celebrated because it exposed the hypocrisy of the News of the World: its mean and suicidal decision to reduce payment to the call girl and main witness, Woman E, by more than half; the pomposity
of editor Colin Myler, who insisted that he was motivated by public interest; and the blackmail, unreliability and inconsistencies of its reporter, Neville Thurlbeck.
Since the judgment, there has been much hand-wringing about the freedom of the press. Most of it is self-serving. The damage to the press has not been done by Mosley, or the law, but by the practices of the News of the World. The public-interest
defence still remains, but because of the Mosley case, newspapers are now going to have to justify such exposés under the chilly gaze of Mr Justice Eady and the accumulation of privacy law.
That's no bad thing, but my joy at the vanquishing of the News of the World is tempered by the knowledge that while our society haphazardly builds the law to protect privacy in this one limited sphere, we are busily destroying it in almost every
The ruling on the Max Mosley case has turned out to be less chilling for free speech than originally feared. Mosley, the president of FIA, Formula One's governing body, has successfully sued the News of the World for invading his privacy, but he
was not awarded the ‘exemplary damages' he was seeking. So while the damages he will receive of £60,000 may be the highest award yet in a privacy case, it is not the kind of sum that will deter the press from reporting similar cases in the
Lord & 'Master' Carey
looking severe in a frock.
with a veritable orgy of
Lord Carey of Clifton, previously Archbishop of Canterbury, said the recent Max Mosley rulng created a wholly new privacy law which would allow public figures to engage in unspeakable and indecent behaviour without fear of exposure.
In the past a public figure has known that scandalous and immoral behaviour carries serious consequences for his or her public profile, reputation and job. Today it is possible to both have your cake and eat it.
He said a case could be made for “direct link” between depraved, brutal and repugnant behaviour in private and conduct in public life: If a politician, a judge, a bishop, or any public figure cannot keep their promises to a wife,
husband, etc, how can they be trusted to honour pledges to their constituencies and people they serve?
Lord Carey said creating a distinction between private and public behaviour was a deeply-flawed 'anything goes' philosophy. It is also dangerous and socially undermining, devoid of the basic, decent moral standards that form the very fabric of
Meanwhile Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute said: There is a growing culture of shamelessness which can be reversed only if Christian leaders speak out for what is right. That is what most people expect and hope Christian leaders will
Comment: Theological Pillock
Thanks to the 'Archdeacon of Barchester' (and nuffin' to do with Alan, honest)
Fascinating to see Carey jumping into the fray. This individual, technically described by the theological term bloody pillock , has a strong case to be the worst Archbishop of Canterbury since Saint Augustine arrived in about A.D. 600.
During the nineties, he ran a decade of evangelism meant to have churches bursting at the seams. Instead, he delivered the worst decrease in the number of worshippers since the Black Death.
Since retiring, he has persistently crapped the nest of his unfortunate successor. Poor old Rowan Williams, a highly intelligent, sensitive and devout man, is trying to keep the Anglican show on the road, with Nigerian fundamentalists and
American new-agers both baying for his blood, and Carey just cannot keep his gob shut.
His interest in morality and his inability to close his cake-hole neatly came together when he went public on his advice to Prince Charles. Chazza must have longed for the days when a man in his position could have an awkward bishop shortened by
a head. The prosing about morality is particularly nasty in the case, where a poor sod completely unconnected with Mosley's fun and games was sacked from his job when the gutter press outed him when he and his wife refused to provide a nice juicy
story about women A-D.
Since Mr Justice Eady in the High Court found in favour of car-racing mogul Max Mosley against a Sunday paper there has been much hyper-ventilated outrage on the issue of the wigged wonder having created a new so-called “privacy law”.
There has even been a retired Archbishop of Canterbury wailing about the end of national morality as we know it.
Max Mosley, the president of formula one's governing body, is to continue his challenge to the law of privacy by taking his case to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
Mosley, whose private sexual practices became national news in July when the News of the World published details of his involvement in an orgy, says that the £60,000 damages he received for some of the claims the paper made were not an
He wants a change in the law that will force editors to contact the subject of their revelations before publishing articles that could invade their privacy.
I think it's wrong that a tabloid editor can destroy a family and wreck a life without being answerable to anybody just to sell newspapers, Mosley said.
The law allows a practice described as publish and be damned , meaning that newspapers can publish stories that may infringe privacy, knowing that they may face legal consequences after the event.
These tabloids go for somebody almost every Sunday, and apparently it's become routine for them to keep it a secret to prevent the person from seeking an injunction, Mosley said: The chance of being sued is very small, the damages are
not very big, and it is a worthwhile risk.
Mosley's battle is no longer against the News of the World but against the state: I have been able to put right the wrong done to me within the limits of English law. But to remedy it completely I need to challenge English law.
His legal team will argue that the law failed to protect Mosley's right to privacy under the European convention on human rights because of the absence of any obligation on editors. Although [£60,000] is the highest sum ever achieved in
a claim for an invasion of privacy, it is not an effective remedy, said Dominic Crossley, the lawyer representing Mosley : The only effective remedy would have been to prevent the publication in the first place by means of an injunction.
Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre has launched an attack on a High Court judge, accusing him of bringing in a privacy law by the back door.
He said Mr Justice Eady had used the Human Rights Act against the age-old freedom of newspapers to expose moral shortcomings of people in high places.
Mr Justice Eady ruled in favour of motorsport boss Max Mosley in his legal action against the News of the World. He ruled in July that the paper had breached Mosley's privacy, saying he could expect privacy for consensual sexual activities
Dacre told the audience at Society of Editors' annual conference in Bristol that the judge's amoral judgements, in this and other defamation and libel cases, were inexorably and insidiously imposing a privacy law on the press.
Dacre said this had huge implications for newspapers and for society. Public shaming had always been a vital element in defending the parameters of what are considered acceptable standards of social behaviour, he said. Without the freedom to
write about scandal, newspaper sales would fall, creating worrying implications for the democratic process, he said.
Now, some revile a moralising media. Others, such as myself, believe it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand. Either way, it is a choice but Justice Eady - with his awesome powers - has taken away our freedom of expression to make
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lord Falconer defended Mr Justice Eady's role. He said it was not necessarily acceptable for public figures to have aspects of their private lives, such as abortions and other medical treatments,
reported in the newspapers.
Of course, if I'm acting hypocritically or I'm accountable, or there's something that may affect what I do in my public life which emerges from my private life, then that should be published. But there are things which are private and just as
we don't want the state to know everything about us, do we want things that are legitimately private to be made public? I don't think we do.
Max Mosley, the former president of Formula One, was in a European court on 10 January hoping to secure a new law barring newspapers from publishing details of people's private lives without forewarning.
Mosley is asking the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to make it illegal for a newspaper to publish intrusive material without prior notification. He claimed that it was a great fallacy to think this would inhibit press
But campaigners have warned that a prior notification rule could damage valid investigative journalism as well as suppressing kiss and tell journalism, by giving anyone who does not like what is about to appear about them in the
press time to seek an injunction to prevent publication.
The UK Government opposes Mosley's application.
It's really a very simple thing that if a newspaper is going to write something about your private life, or something you might reasonably wish to keep reasonably private, that they should tell you beforehand, Mosley told BBC Radio 4's
Today programme: The fact of the matter is, in 99 cases out of 100, if they are going to write something about someone of any real interest, they will approach the person.
But Geoffrey Robinson QC warned: The vast scope of the new law which is contended for is so vague as to be unworkable.
Ex Formula 1 boss Max Mosley has lost his European Court of Human Rights bid to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives.
He said the Strasbourg verdict was disappointing but he may appeal, to keep fighting for tighter privacy laws: [I'm] obviously disappointed, but it's satisfying that they've been extremely critical of the News of the World.
Mosley won his 2008 High Court battle after a judge ruled there was no justification for the News of the World's front-page article about him paying five women to take part in a sado-masochistic orgy.
The tabloid reported that the orgy involving Mosley, the son of fascist leader Oswald Mosley, had Nazi overtones, but this was rejected by the judge.
Although he was awarded £ 60,000 damages, everyone had learned the details of his sexual preferences, and he argued money alone could not restore his reputation. He said once a story had been published,
you could not un-publish it, and the damage had been done.
He took his case to the Human Rights Court, challenging UK laws which allow publication without giving targets advanced warning. The court clearly had some sympathy for Mosley's individual case, but said it had to look more broadly and assess the
balance between an individual's right to privacy and the media's right to freedom of expression under the UK's legal system.
The UK, along with other contracting states, has a margin of appreciation - ie some leeway in the way it protects people's right to privacy. Taking that into account, the court found that the mix of rights and remedies available to people
in the UK - which includes actions for damages, injunctions when the person knows of an imminent story, and regulation of the press through the Press Complaints Commission - sufficiently protected their privacy. It also feared that a general
requirement of prior notification risked having a chilling effect on serious investigative journalism.
Max Mosley has began an appeal against the European Court rejection of his attempt to extend privacy laws. He had demanded that newspapers about to expose details of someone's private life are forced to warn the individual before they do so. This
would give the person time to seek an injunction to stop publication.
But last month the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg threw out the demand, saying it could have a chilling effect on journalism.
Now he has taken up his last option -- applying for a hearing before a 17-judge Grand Chamber of the same court.
A statement from Mosley's lawyers, Collyer Bristow said:
Despite the court's "severe criticisms" of the News of the World, this and other tabloid newspapers could use the same techniques tomorrow to obtain and publish intimate photographs and details of the sex lives of
individuals, without notice and in the knowledge that it is wholly unlawful.
Privacy has been the subject of considerable public and media debate in the last month and a ruling from the Grand Chamber of the Court is needed upon this important issue to close a clear gap in UK law
Former motorsport boss turned privacy campaigner Max Mosley has had his appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected. Mosley had hoped to overturn a May ruling establishing that media outlets were not required to
notify the subjects of stories in advance of publication. But the court announced that that judgment would be final.
Solicitor Mark Stephens, who represented Index on Censorship, the Media Legal Defence Initiative and other interested parties in the case, said:
This decision by the Grand Chamber and the previous decision by the court underline the recommendation made by the UK parliament's Culture Media and Sport Committee. This is a great day for free speech in Britain and throughout Europe.
Index on Censorship news editor Padraig Reidy commented: I
Index submitted its concerns about Mr Mosley's prior-notification plans as we recognised the threat such an obligation would pose to investigative journalism. While privacy is of course a concern, forcing newspapers to reveal stories would have
a serious chilling effect.
Max Mosley was famously the victim of a spectacular 2008 sting by News of the World which posted photos and video of him participating in a sadomasochistic sex party that the paper described as a sick Nazi orgy with hookers.
The High Court ruled that there was no evidence that the sex party had been intended to be an enactment of Nazi behavior or adoption of any of its attitudes. It also found that there had been no public interest or other
justification for the clandestine recording.
The court ordered News of the World to remove the material in question from its Web site, naturally, and there the story might have ended. Except, of course, that the photos and video continue to live on the Internet, via social media and on Web
sites maintained by individuals.
Although initially deserving of sympathy for the intrusion, Mosley has been calling for the repressive censorship of the internet in his vindictive quest to get the genie put back in the bottle.
Mosley has asked a Paris court during the past week to order Google to create an algorithm to somehow censor all such photos from its service and search engine, now and forever. His lawyer told the court, the Tribunal de Grande Instance, that if
Google France refused to remove the offending images it should face fines.
Google responded in a statement, noting that it had always honoured his requests to remove links to material that obviously violated the High Court order:
We sympathize with Mr. Mosley's situation, But his proposal to filter the Web would censor legitimate speech, restrict access to information, and stifle innovation.
Google noted that there was already a solution to the problem: Going after the actual publishers of the material, and working with Google through our existing and effective removals process.
The French court said it would issue a ruling on Oct. 21. Mosley has filed a similar case in Hamburg that is to be heard this month.
Google has been ordered by a French court to remove links to images of Max Mosley with prostitutes.
Google said the ruling should worry all those who defend freedom of expression on the internet . It intends to appeal.
Mosley successfully sued the UK's now-defunct News of the World after it ran a story in 2008 claiming he had organised an orgy with Nazi overtones. He won damages for breach of privacy. The News of the World secretly filmed the former Formula One
chief with five prostitutes and published a front-page story.
Mosley said Google had agreed to remove links to material from the story on a case-by-case basis. But he claimed that when he had asked the firm to re-programme its technology to ensure it did not show up at all in searches about him it had
refused as a matter of principle even though it was technically feasible .
A German court has ruled today that Google must block all access in the country to images of a sadomasochistic orgy involving the former Formula One boss Max Mosley.
The pictures, taken from a video filmed by the now-defunct News of the World and published in an article in 2008, were judged by the court to seriously violate Mosley's privacy. The paper was fined for a breach of privacy.
Google has resisted Mosley's attempts to make it block all access to the widely-circulated images, saying that to do so sets a disturbing precedent for internet censorship.
The search engine giant said it planned to appeal today's decision from a Hamburg court, which has ordered the company to prevent any pictures, links or even thumbnails images from the orgy to show up on the google.de site.
How are you implementing the recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision on the right to be forgotten?
The recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union has profound consequences for search engines in Europe. The court found that certain users have the right to ask search engines like Google to remove results for queries that
include the person's name. To qualify, the results shown would need to be inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive.
Since this ruling was published on 13 May 2014, we've been working around the clock to comply. This is a complicated process because we need to assess each individual request and balance the rights of the individual to control his or her
personal data with the public's right to know and distribute information.
We look forward to working closely with data protection authorities and others over the coming months as we refine our approach. The CJEU's ruling constitutes a significant change for search engines. While we are concerned about its impact, we
also believe that it's important to respect the Court's judgement and we are working hard to devise a process that complies with the law.
When you search for a name, you may see a notice that says that results may have been modified in accordance with data protection law in Europe. We're showing this notice in Europe when a user searches for most names, not just pages that have
been affected by a removal.
Max Mosley has launched a new legal claim against Google, the search engine giant, for reproducing sexual images related to an expose in the News of the World.
Proceedings have been issued against Google's British arm and its California-based parent company, claiming that continuing to link to the images is a misuse of private information and a breach of data protection laws.
A spokesman for Google said: We have worked with Mr Mosley to address his concerns and taken down hundreds of URLs [internet links] about which he has notified us.
Sources in the company said they would fight the new High Court claim.
Google has struck a private settlement deal with Max Mosley over images that show the ex-Formula One chief having private fun with sex workers.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Mosley and Google had agreed to end the lengthy legal row in Germany, France and the UK.
But terms of the deal between the two parties were kept secret. It's also unclear whether Google agreed to censor access to the material.
In 2013, Google was ordered by a French court to remove links to nine images of Mosley cavorting with prostitutes, none of which were pornographic. At the time, Google claimed the ruling was troubling and argued that it had serious
consequences for free expression .
And indeed the right to free speech has now given way to the right to not be offended, especially when the demand is backed up by violence. So now Google may as well give in to the demands for censorship as everyone else has anyway.
Max Mosley has launched a chilling new attack on Press freedom, with an extraordinary legal bid to scrub records of his notorious German-themed orgy from history.
The former Formula One boss also wants to restrict reporting on the £3.8million his family trust spends bankrolling the controversial Press regulator Impress.
He has taken legal action against a range of newspapers -- the Daily Mail, The Times, The Sun and at least one other national newspaper -- demanding they delete any references to his sadomasochistic sex party and never mention it again.
However, in a move that could have devastating consequences both for Press freedom and for historical records, Mr Mosley is now using data protection laws to try to force newspapers to erase any mention of it. He has also insisted that the
newspapers stop making references to the fact he bankrolls Impress -- the highly controversial, state-approved Press regulator.
Yesterday, MPs warned against data protection laws being used to trample Press freedoms. Conservative MP Bill Cash said:
The freedom of the Press is paramount and it would be perverse to allow historical records to be removed on the basis of data protection. If data protection can be used to wipe out historical records, then the consequences would be dramatic.
John Whittingdale, a Tory former Culture Secretary, said:
Data protection is an important principle for the protection of citizens. However, it must not be used to restrict the freedom of the Press.
In his action, the multimillionaire racing tycoon claimed that the Daily Mail's owner, Associated Newspapers, had breached data protection principles in 34 articles published since 2013 -- including many opinion pieces defending the freedom of
the Press. These principles are designed to stop companies from excessive processing of people's sensitive personal data or from holding on to people's details for longer than necessary, and come with exemptions for journalism that is in the