A landmark case

There are certain things newspapers do not have the right to print, which is why I hope Max Mosley wins his case.

That's according to Sholto Byrnes wrting on Comment is Free.

As mentioned earlier Formula 1 supremo Max Mosley luanched his action against the News of the World over its article showing him in a compromising position with a group of women dressed in Nazi uniforms.

The case will centre around the recent rulings on Article 8 of the European convention on Human rights which protects the privacy of the individual.The news of the world will argue that the public interest scenario,firstly that Max's background means that the Nazi link is important and secondly as his positio in Formula One.

Mosely will argue that the Nazi overtones were incidental and that his private life is his concern only.

It could well be an important case with regards to privacy something that has not really been established since Britain signed up to the convention.

According to Byrnes he is

rooting for Max Mosley and raising three cheers for Mr Justice Eady, who has presided over several article 8 cases that found in favour of individuals over newspapers. Let a privacy law creep no more, say I: let it stand proud and declare to the press that there are certain things you don't have the right to print. That this would inevitably come at a cost to serious investigative journalism would be an important caveat – were any newspaper groups still investing in this high-price, long-term reporting. They aren't, of course. The fact is that newspapers have acted so irresponsibly and callously in reporting people's private lives, and with such feeble justifications of the public interest, for so long, that they have lost the right to be free of the restrictions imposed by a privacy law.