I'm deliberately conflating two different things, actually. Firstly, what they've actually done is make granting an injunction protecting Moseley's privacy pointless, by spreading the offending material widely.
Secondly (as a friend pointed out; the observation is not original to me) the nature of the material (as described; I've not seen it myself) is not a million miles from that proposed to be prohibited as “extreme pornography”.
This comment from the judge suggests that it might become straightforward for newspapers to get round privacy law:
Mr Justice Eady said that Mr Mosley no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy because the content of the video was now "widely familiar".
So all you have to do is "leak" something on the Internet, and a few days later your target's privacy is sufficiently ruined that you can legitimately invade it some more.
(I feel no particular sympathy for Max Mosley, though.)
The judge said that the footage was "very brief, containing shots of Mr Mosley taking part in sexual activities with five prostitutes, and it also covers the tea break".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 10:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 10:59 am (UTC)Putting it in the paper itself would be a different matter, of course…
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 11:08 am (UTC)I'm deliberately conflating two different things, actually. Firstly, what they've actually done is make granting an injunction protecting Moseley's privacy pointless, by spreading the offending material widely.
Secondly (as a friend pointed out; the observation is not original to me) the nature of the material (as described; I've not seen it myself) is not a million miles from that proposed to be prohibited as “extreme pornography”.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 11:11 am (UTC)(I feel no particular sympathy for Max Mosley, though.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 11:11 am (UTC)Only in Britain...
Date: 2008-04-09 11:22 am (UTC)