"johannes" wrote in message
news:48897B8C.FAA129DA@siz368568508efitter.com...
>
>
> MM wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:11:07 +0100, Trevor Pavitt
>> wrote:
>>
>> >For a man with as high a public profile as Max Mosley to have
>> >continued to indulge in practices which are repugnant to many people
>> >seems little short of madness.
>>
>> Repugnant? Who are you to judge? One man's meat is another man's
>> poison. If we properly respected privacy in this country, we would
>> simply not know what people do legally behind their own four walls and
>> that is exactly the way it should be. And now the NOTW have learned
>> that the costly way.
>>
>> MM
>
> The sad thing is that the privacy laws only apply to the rich and
> powerful.
> 1. Time and money on a case that could be lost. 2. 'Ordinary' people will
> be
> unable to get a significant amount of compensation for 'lack of
> reputation'.
No, that isn't so. The privacy laws apply to everyone. Since it is always a
question of striking a balance between public interest and the individual's
right to privacy, the more rich and powerful you are, the less likely you
are to have your right to privacy upheld.
It is true of course that not everyone can afford to go to court. But if you
were an ordinary member of the public and your privacy was breached (eg your
.ual activities were made public in a newspaper, or your autistic son was
pictured and ridiculed, or your house was shown on the front page of a
newspaper with the caption The Filthiest House In Britain) you would almost
certainly win, and the newspaper would cave in and pay up before you went to
court.
|