mosely versus 'free speech'

Herbie von Smalls · July 27, 2008

whether or not it was a 'nazi-themed orgy', i'm glad to see the courts nailing the notw for running the story. i can't see any justification for such an invasion of privacy. imo, any sexual act between two or more consenting adults is their business, no matter how depraved, offensive or distasteful anyone else finds it.

red tops in the uk (and elsewhere, i guess) appear to draw no distinction between 'free speech' and 'free reign'. the level of hypocrisy and pontification is frankly disgusting, as far as i'm concerned.

what irks me even more in this case, is the contribution made by former archbishop of canterbury to the debate (appearing in the ... news of the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7527319.stm

But in his News of the World article, Lord Carey said the ruling for Mr Mosley served to undermine public morality.

Lord Carey - Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002 - said free speech has been the "first major victim".

Lord Carey writes: "Without public debate or democratic scrutiny, the courts have created a wholly new privacy law. In itself that's bad enough.

"But, as a Christian leader, I am deeply sad that public morality is the second victim of this legal judgement.

"Unspeakable and indecent behaviour, whether in public or in private, is no longer significant under this ruling."

'Serious consequences'

Mr Mosley is president of the FIA, the governing body for motor sports including Formula 1, and the son of the 1930s Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley.

Mr Mosley told the court the publicity had been "totally devastating" for his wife of 48 years, from whom he had kept secret his interest in sadomasochistic sex.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Eady said Mr Mosley could expect privacy for consensual "sexual activities (albeit unconventional)".

According to Lord Carey, in a "celebrity-obsessed age" this is a hazardous route to take.

"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 to eat it. But a case can be clearly made for a direct link between private behaviour and public conduct.

"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?"

He said the court's decision would "needlessly shackle" the press and prevent investigations on matters of public interest.

it strikes me that carey has no moral qualms about airing his views in a salacious rag, yet is only too willing to impose his judgment on others.

i'd love to know if he was paid for the article and, if so, whether or not he has kept all or any of it.

Gunga Din · July 27, 2008

This post is not viewable to guests.

You can sign in to your account at the login page here