Max wins case against NOTW

[Dave B]

That really isn't the point.

The point is to what extent do public figures regardlesss of political affiliations and no matter how their dubious morals have a right to privacy from the media?

In my view the defence of "in the public interest" has mutated to become "things the public are interested in". Not the same thing at all, but the tabloids don't appear aware of the distinction.

[BDunnell]

That really isn't the point.

The point is to what extent do public figures regardlesss of political affiliations and no matter how their dubious morals have a right to privacy from the media?

No, but it is another, not unrelated, point.

I believe it becomes relevant when (a) someone is a hypocrite for having done whatever it is they've done — an MP who espouses family values having an affair, for example; or (b) someone has committed a criminal act. There is now a third category, too: those who take out super-injunctions, for these represent a curb too far on press freedom, not relating to stories about celebrities shagging but in terms of the effect they can have on the reporting of more serious matters. Therefore, I believe those who take advantage of them deserve to be exposed. And the future of much legitimate investigative journalism would have been called into question under the laws Mosley was espousing, but which thankfully didn't get very far.