It may be defined somewhere, but as I said, the bar for being 'in the public interest' is lower than many people think.
But the more I think about it, public interest is irrelevant because the original stories were anonymous.
Clearly, you cannot libel or invade the privacy of someone who is not named.
All the stories I've seen, including in the other newspapers, did not name Edwards until after he coughed the job.
What has the number of posts got to do with it?
You will either be able to say someone is wrong on the internet or not, but for an illustration of my difficulties, see below.
Oh dear, monkers, that is the so called whistleblower's act which only applies to individuals who may want to disclose private information in the course of their whistleblowing.
Or put another way, it does not apply to newspapers.
I've seen plenty of others make similar mistakes when relying on Google Law, which is one reason why I will never quote an Act unless I am absolutely nailed on certain it is the correct one.
I'm fully aware PR of the purpose of the act, but the basic principles remain.
I guess it's natural that you wish to protect the reputation of yourself and your colleagues, but as unpopular with you as it may be, the public think that press hacks are scum because they keep showing us their character.
I also acknowledge that Mosley was not successful in his bid to the ECtHR with regard to pre-notification. He did have other successes of note though regarding the invasion of his privacy.
Sex scandal and further legal issues
In 2008, Mosley won a court case (
Mosley v News Group Newspapers) against the
News of the World newspaper which had reported his involvement in what they said was a Nazi-themed sex act involving five women, on the grounds that it had breached his privacy. Justice Eady ruled that, despite one of the attendees wearing a military uniform, there were no Nazi connotations to the
orgy.
[140][141] As a result, in 2009 Mosley brought a case (
Mosley v United Kingdom) against the UK's privacy laws in the
European Court of Human Rights, in a bid to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives so they could have the opportunity to seek a court injunction. The case was rejected by the court on 10 May 2011 as they argued that a "pre-notification requirement would inevitably affect political reporting and serious journalism."
[142]
In July 2011,
The Daily Telegraph reported that Mosley was financially guaranteeing the court costs of claimants who may have been subjected to
phone hacking by the News of the World. Mosley refused to comment at the time, but he later gave a television interview to the BBC and a telephone interview to
Reuters where he confirmed the story.
[143]
Mosley launched legal action against
Google, in an attempt to stop searches from returning web pages which use the photographs from the video used for the
News of the World story.
[144] On 6 November 2013, in
Mosley v SARL Google, a French court sided with Mosley and ordered Google to prevent its
search engine from providing links to images of Mosley engaging in sexual activities from the video.
The Register suggested the ruling would lead to a
Streisand effect, increasing interest in the images, which are still findable through other search engines.
[145] At the
Leveson Inquiry, Mosley stated his reasons for pursuing Google:
the fundamental point is that Google could stop this material appearing but they don't, or they won't as a matter of principle. My position is that if the search engines – if somebody were to stop the search engines producing the material, the actual sites don't really matter because without a search engine, nobody will find it, it would just be a few friends of the person who posts it. The really dangerous things are the search engines.
[146]
Mosley launched similar legal action against Google in Germany. In January 2014, the German court also ruled against the American company.
[147] In giving its verdict, the court stated, "that the banned pictures of the plaintiff severely violate his private sphere."
[148]
In an interview with
Der Spiegel following the judgement, Mosley said: "Strictly speaking Google has got to obey German courts in Germany and French courts in France. But in the end it has to decide whether it wants to live in a democracy. Google behaves like an adolescent rebelling against the establishment. The company has to recognise that it is a part of society and it must accept the responsibility which comes with that."
[149] Mosley then launched proceedings against Google in the UK. All the cases were eventually settled in May 2015.
[150]
