Max Mosley is an interesting man. He was born to a society beauty and the leader of the British Union of Fascists, both of whom were arrested for their Nazi sympathies when he was a baby. Mr. Mosley took a degree in physics at Oxford and later trained at Gray's Inn, London as a barrister. From this he went on to a career in motorsport, because the motorsport world was ambivalent towards his parents' political history. He was president of the FIA (Fédération Internationale d'Automobile) for sixteen years and did some great work on road safety. However, that isn't really what this post is about.
We'll fast-forward to the bit that's relevant to this post (in response to the disapproving tone of this article). He was due to retire as the president of the FIA (when his term ended in 2009) when a story broke in March 2008 about his involvement in a sado-masochistic orgy with five sex workers. Everyone was shocked that a man with such an illustrious career would find being beaten enjoyable. I suppose nobody had ever thought of him in that way, or perhaps it was unpalatable that their long-term leader - in a world where women were often treated as objects by the upper eschelons - would allow himself to be treated like that by five women. Maybe it was simply that he was a married man and engaging sex workers was a violation of his marital vows; we'll never know.
In response to this, Mr. Mosley has begun campaigning for more stringent laws in the UK protecting celebrities' privacy. While I'm a fan of wikileaks' work in exposing issues such as arms deals around the world, I'm in favour of more stringent personal privacy laws. Let me give you an example: it's beneficial for the world to know that the US is selling arms to Egypt, especially in light of recent events, but do we really need to know that Colonel Gaddafi has a buxom, blonde nurse whose presence is required in his private quarters almost constantly?
Critics of the proposed law say that it's a threat to serious journalism to be required to inform the subject of the story that it's about to be published. The subjects of stories would be able to get an injunction from the courts to delay or stop the publication of the article. However, isn't journalism subject to a code of ethics? Maybe it depends on how one defines journalism. If one counts tabloid papers as examples of serious journalism, then, yes, it is a threat to serious journalism. If you regard papers that at least try to get a quote from the subject of the story as examples of serious journalism, then no, the law is just reinforcing good journalistic practice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of free speech; I believe it's a basic human right. However, with every right comes a concomitant responsibility. In this case, the responsibility to refrain from hate speech and libel. Do the opponents of the law really think that it's in the interest of the public to have the gory details of celebrities' private lives? If those public figures are members of the government who are spending tax-payers' money on their mistresses, then yes, the tax-payers should be informed. If it's someone whose private predilections have no impact on their jobs, I would debate whether the world needs to know. The law isn't banning free speech, it's leaving the decision about whether or not someone's reputation should be slandered up to a judge, should the subject of the story seek an injunction.
I'm not going to sit here and insist that all judges are honourable and above prejudice and bribes, but they got their jobs for a reason. They were appointed to the bench because they showed a history of trustworthiness (at least, we're assuming it wasn't a political appointment or because of nepotism). Thus, if a judge thinks a story is going to be a sensationalist piece about a private matter, (s)he can block it; if (s)he thinks it's in the interest of the public to know about an MP's mistress living off the tax-payer, the story can be published. It's a law about being sensible.
We all do naughty things. Al Gore enjoyed a puff or two of herb when he was at university - along with over 50% of US citizens. Most people had at least one cigarette in high school. I have a friend who likes to be cut with razor blades and then have sex with the fresh wounds rubbing against the sheets. It may not be to our personal taste, but we all like what's bad for us - I'm lactose intolerant and still feel the urge to gorge myself on chocolate after a bad day. So what? Because someone's a public figure, journalists should follow them around and poke into what they do behind closed doors so that we can be shocked and make disapproving noises? The bottom line is this: if you live in a glass house, throwing stones at others is unadvisable. So, journalists should be able to stand up in court and defend why they think their stone-throwing is justified before airing someone's dirty laundry in the papers. Does that sound fair to you?
We'll fast-forward to the bit that's relevant to this post (in response to the disapproving tone of this article). He was due to retire as the president of the FIA (when his term ended in 2009) when a story broke in March 2008 about his involvement in a sado-masochistic orgy with five sex workers. Everyone was shocked that a man with such an illustrious career would find being beaten enjoyable. I suppose nobody had ever thought of him in that way, or perhaps it was unpalatable that their long-term leader - in a world where women were often treated as objects by the upper eschelons - would allow himself to be treated like that by five women. Maybe it was simply that he was a married man and engaging sex workers was a violation of his marital vows; we'll never know.
In response to this, Mr. Mosley has begun campaigning for more stringent laws in the UK protecting celebrities' privacy. While I'm a fan of wikileaks' work in exposing issues such as arms deals around the world, I'm in favour of more stringent personal privacy laws. Let me give you an example: it's beneficial for the world to know that the US is selling arms to Egypt, especially in light of recent events, but do we really need to know that Colonel Gaddafi has a buxom, blonde nurse whose presence is required in his private quarters almost constantly?
Critics of the proposed law say that it's a threat to serious journalism to be required to inform the subject of the story that it's about to be published. The subjects of stories would be able to get an injunction from the courts to delay or stop the publication of the article. However, isn't journalism subject to a code of ethics? Maybe it depends on how one defines journalism. If one counts tabloid papers as examples of serious journalism, then, yes, it is a threat to serious journalism. If you regard papers that at least try to get a quote from the subject of the story as examples of serious journalism, then no, the law is just reinforcing good journalistic practice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of free speech; I believe it's a basic human right. However, with every right comes a concomitant responsibility. In this case, the responsibility to refrain from hate speech and libel. Do the opponents of the law really think that it's in the interest of the public to have the gory details of celebrities' private lives? If those public figures are members of the government who are spending tax-payers' money on their mistresses, then yes, the tax-payers should be informed. If it's someone whose private predilections have no impact on their jobs, I would debate whether the world needs to know. The law isn't banning free speech, it's leaving the decision about whether or not someone's reputation should be slandered up to a judge, should the subject of the story seek an injunction.
I'm not going to sit here and insist that all judges are honourable and above prejudice and bribes, but they got their jobs for a reason. They were appointed to the bench because they showed a history of trustworthiness (at least, we're assuming it wasn't a political appointment or because of nepotism). Thus, if a judge thinks a story is going to be a sensationalist piece about a private matter, (s)he can block it; if (s)he thinks it's in the interest of the public to know about an MP's mistress living off the tax-payer, the story can be published. It's a law about being sensible.
We all do naughty things. Al Gore enjoyed a puff or two of herb when he was at university - along with over 50% of US citizens. Most people had at least one cigarette in high school. I have a friend who likes to be cut with razor blades and then have sex with the fresh wounds rubbing against the sheets. It may not be to our personal taste, but we all like what's bad for us - I'm lactose intolerant and still feel the urge to gorge myself on chocolate after a bad day. So what? Because someone's a public figure, journalists should follow them around and poke into what they do behind closed doors so that we can be shocked and make disapproving noises? The bottom line is this: if you live in a glass house, throwing stones at others is unadvisable. So, journalists should be able to stand up in court and defend why they think their stone-throwing is justified before airing someone's dirty laundry in the papers. Does that sound fair to you?
I think the Max storyline that hit the tabloids and then the courts knocked back the journalistic world. They weren't expecting someone to fight them because they were used to getting their own way. Yet here is someone who openly admitted the article was true and set about changing the legal standpoint to make it far more difficult for articles like that to get published without all subject's consent.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the royal wedding secrets that women's magazines openly lie about to get more readership. Nobody knows what's happening, or what Kate's wearing, or who'll be her bridesmaids. It's all speculation at the end of thr day to get more readers to buy their products.
Opinions matter, but facts are king. If you don't have the facts your opinion means nothing.
I agree that it's just irritating when people lie to get readership - if your writing isn't good enough to get readership, improve your writing. It reminds me of those articles about Lady Di's "secrets" that were being printed for years after she passed. How low do people need to stoop to get attention?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great post.
ReplyDeleteWhat consenting adults do in private is their business. No one should pry on them. It looks like Mosley is having an effect. There's a palpable change in public opinion in the UK. Let's hope he wins his case in the European Court of Human Rights. Apparently judgement is expected in July.
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteIt might take a bit more than a new law and a few months for Britain to change. The majority of British people that I meet (in real life. The ones I meet online have brains) are all too happy to gobble up things like Heat, Loose Women, etc. and that makes it tricky to turn the tide of public opinion :(