INTERNATIONAL

Sex, Privacy and Max Mosley

What a court's decision on the motor-sport chief could mean for sex reporting in Britain.

By William Underhill | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Jul 24, 2008 | Updated: 4:34 p.m. ET Jul 24, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: Eagles_Heart @ 07/25/2008 11:27:25 PM

Comment: Holly Garfield's comments are accurate and well written.. and dang I wish they were not. I do not see this as a Right To Privacy matter at all. I am absolutely against "censorship," especially as pertains to the Witch Hunt (i.e., The Puritan Connection), but I firmly believe that Journalists, by virtue of their profession, are also "public figures" and leaders and more than any other entity, movers and shakers affecting public ethics and integrity.

Therefore, the profit motive mentioned as a rationale for "employing more journalists" I think is tacky.

If there are Journalists who have no concept of professionalism, no ability to write anything but scumbag material aimed at the worst of human nature, they should be drummed out of the corps... and pick up a motorized lawn mower to cut grass down to size instead of some hapless fool who has his own demons to deal with.

This is "journalism"??? .... stirring up phony baloney readers who do the "o my isn't that awful" drill and peruse ever word to the last dotted "i" and cross-eyed "t."

We have no right to be arbiters of human conduct in the public press. But we have a professional responsibility NOT to promote the worst of human nature as "entertainment." It's Shadenfreude at its worst.

And that was what I was taught in the UCLA School of Journalism... they called that course "The Ethics of Journalism."
- Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/26/2008 7:30:37 AM
  
  Comment: Thank you for the 'compliment' of sorts. Unfortunately, freedom of the press does not guarantee quality of the press. I find just the opposite, that anyone who can find a big enough audience to stay in business will get published. No quality needed if that is what enough of the public wants. I was using profit to show that enough interest exists for those who want freedon AND quality to not get their way. By the way, who are you and I to define 'quality' for other people? Isn't that what freedom is about? If others used my definition of 'quality' in artwork a large number of artistic masterworks would be burned to ashes, and I guess the same applies to literature and other forms of expression. I guess that means I can apply my standards of quality in regard to the First Amendment freedoms to myself, and only myself. Just like everyone else in a free society. I think that means we can learn and teach ethics, but not legislate or restrict other's ethics. We can hold ourselves to our ethics, but not anyone else.
Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/25/2008 8:01:47 PM

Comment: To ndrock: I don't know about Britian, but the US Constitution does not include any right to privacy. There is some implicit indications, but no expicit privacy rights in the US. Also the journalism in question is aimed directly at public figures almost exclusively. This kind of journalism has existed for a long time. The subjects of the journalists are almost all aware that the price of their lifestyle is that they become targets of the journalists. As such the privacy of all but a few public figures is not open for invasion. I, personally, share your views on privacy. As someone who has worked in the media for many years I am aware that there is enough interest in this kind of journalism to justify its existence. If the tabloids can sell enough papers, at the prices they charge, to pay the journalist and staff, and still turn a profit then many people don't share our viewpoint. But that is what freedom of the press is about.
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/25/2008 3:47:45 PM

Comment: I'm still trying to figure out why the MSM is being so lame with ''Sex,Privacy and John Edwards''.

It has been getting worse. First the National Enquirer has filed a lawsuit against the Beverly Hills Hilton where Edwards was spotted by its cameramen meeting with his mistress,a Reille Hunter.Edwards was first observed entering the hotel early in the morning on the 21st,staying in Hunters room until 10 to 11 o'clock AM,and then when returning to the lobby where the tabloid had its people staked out,retreated into a mens restroom for a period of fifteen minutes while security[which is accused in the suit of ''roughing up''the paparazzi],removed the NE guys from the lobby. The Los Angeles Times,always a strict adherent to the 1st Amendment,[insert;heavy sarcasm here] has shut down its blogs relating to this new scandal,and is prohibiting bloggers from even mentioning the Breck Girls mess,[they are now getting hit with a firestorm of scorn,so they will probably lift the ban later today]. As it becomes,it is not the more conservative FOX News which has been having a field day with the scandal and capping on the MSM including NEWSWEAK for looking up at the sky and whistling, [ I mean,ye gods. This man is on Obamas short-list as VP. This IS news], but the liberal SLATE web-magazine. Of course,this ''love-child'' folderol [which is another mess entirely] can be figured out in a trice with a DNA test.
Posted By: ndrock @ 07/25/2008 2:48:03 PM

Comment: I guess I am still from the old school. What you do in private should be your own private business whether it is with questionable people or not. Just because journalism has turned into nothing more sensual news, does not mean I should have to give up my right to my private life for their selling stories at any cost.

Of course he should have been with a better class of hookers, and this is a good lesson for him. Play out your fantasy in a regulated house of these kinds of things instead of the solo way.
Posted By: yepitsme @ 07/25/2008 2:31:01 PM

Comment: "News" is what people DO NOT want made public. Everything else is public relations.
Posted By: deadboy1 @ 07/25/2008 2:27:05 PM

Comment: Freedom of speech and the presses is more precious than privacy. Maybe he should have considered his decision to "trust" five prostitutes before he filed suit against News of the Word. It is news! He's a public figure engaging in what most people would consider extravagant sexual endeavors. Whenever you give people something to talk about, well....they'll talk. It's their right!!!
Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/25/2008 12:47:08 PM

Comment: Any law that prohibits publishing something that is true (whether the subject of that truth likes it or not) is dangerous. Inevitably, it will be used to protect those who are already privileged, by punishing or threatening to punish those who might embarass the powerful by revealing some fact about them that the public would not approve. A better rule by which the elites can already protect themselves from muck-raking journalists: "If you don't want people to read about it, don't do it".
Posted By: Old Lou @ 07/25/2008 11:36:29 AM

Comment: If Mosley broke the law, he should be prosecuted. That would be a legitimate news story. As for the talented gents of Fleet Street, even they can probably find something more worthwhile to report on. Perhaps this ruling will serve as an incentive.
Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 07/25/2008 11:00:48 AM

Comment: I am a former engineer in radio and TV. I have had my paycheck dependent on the US First Amendment and freedom of the press. As much as the British tabloids are in questionable taste to me personally, I find the judge's ruling far more disturbing. These were hired prostitutes, hardly a husband-and-wife type of privacy. He is not only a noble, he is a public figure of his own choosing. That should pretty much make his exploits, sexual or otherwise, fair game. I doubt that he signed a non-disclosure agreement with the prostitutes, and was certainly aware of the nature of his positon and the British tabloids. This being so, I can't see any reasonable expectation that exposure of his 'hobby' wouldn't happen. He is also ignoble for not taking his punishment.
Posted By: sgoldbarg @ 07/25/2008 6:31:30 AM

Comment: Now Brits can engage in illegal activity with fellow criminals and get the courts to keep the news out of the press. I don't understand the reasoning behind ruling that a half dozen or more criminals are allowed to know about mosely's perversions, but not the rest of us. It seems to me that when you involve a crowd, you have jettisoned any presumption of privacy. However, perhaps that is because the judge and I have different hobbies.
Posted By: frxtsjam @ 07/25/2008 5:19:35 AM

Comment: True that as a nobleman Mosley must observed a high moral standard and that he should not engage in such activities that makes him look immoral,,, however Mr. Mosley's privacy was being touch by British Press which makes them look (the press) irresponsible...I guess the British Parliament needs to implement laws that could actually protect its citizen from this irresponsible media who are invading someone's privacy... the issue here is no longer about the immoral activity of Mr. Mosley but it is about his PRIVACY which I think every one of us must take into consideration..
Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/24/2008 7:19:04 PM

Comment: The British Parliament needs to change the law so that London isn't the venue of choice for lawsuits intended to silence the press. It seems to me that the public has a right to know about big shots being weirdos. While this isn't the best example, Britain has become a rabbit-court for jerks. Mosley is a nobleman, which is supposed to represent some sort of moral standard as well as acheivement.
Posted By: Cavallino_Rapante @ 07/24/2008 5:41:29 PM

Comment: The British Press shows its stupidity by confusing Motorsports with Government - they are not the same, and neither should the 'morality yardstick' with which it measures both. I saw no 'duty' of the press by reporting Mosley's sex life - unless the British Press was contracted to uncover such information by Mosley's spouse (which it wasn't). Bravo to Mosley for reinforcing a basic Human Right we all should have.