Max Mosley Privacy

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.

See full article from The Register
see also article from News of the World

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: Not 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").

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.

...Read full article

From Alan:

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.

See full article from Niki Flynn

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.

...Read full article

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 change.

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.

...Read full article

On The Other Hand

See full article from the Guardian by Jamie Doward

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.

...Read full article

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.

...Read full article

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".

...Read full article

Fighting Freedom

Thanks to Alan
See full article from the Pandora's Blog

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.

...Read full article

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 other area.

...Read full article

The latest high-profile, UK privacy case raises critical questions for press freedom

See article from indexoncensorship.org by Jo Glanville

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 future.

...Read full article

Lord & 'Master' Carey looking severe in a frock. Inflicting extreme sexual discipline. with a veritable orgy of tongue lashing!

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 our society.

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 do.

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.

...read full article

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 adequate remedy.

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 (albeit unconventional).

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 that choice.

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 freedom.

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.