The High Court ruling stressed the difference between what was in 'the public interest' and what 'the public was interested in', and that this was a private matter. And despite my posts - and despite the fact I am just as prurient as all the others who flock to the DS Showbiz thread - I agree.

It's all very well claiming the UK could adopt French privacy laws, but in France the upshot is that

1) The privacy laws are manipulated by lawyers to ensure even stuff which is in the public interest is not published

2) Clever lawyers outside France use the fact that a British, US etc publication is also available in France where some stories might be banned as a threat that their client will sue for libel in France, so better not publish it anywhere else, either

3) The media are so cowed that they are not half as free as in the UK, elsewhere in Europe and the US with the result that the government has a rather unusual hold over what they can and cannot publish. 'Freedom of the press' is regarded as a joke in bad taste in France. So much for French privacy laws.

Yes, it's about the press coming out with the bullshit story about 'We strike a blow for freedom' blah blah, which would be complete bollocks.

It does, however, occur to me that film studios, record companies etc might be the ones insisting on an injunction or cover-up because they fear bad publicity will hit sales, where the folk involved couldn't really give a monkey's either way. But obviously they depend on the studios, record firms etc for their livelihood and have to do as they are told.

Exactly. It is always the cover-up which gives the story legs, not the story itself.

I'm about to buck the trend around here.

I don't find the DM article amusing, clever or any other positive synonyms.

On the contrary I find it inappropriate, sleazy and unnecessary and I am well aware that I will be in a minority of one.

The laws of the land are there for a reason and I cannot applaud the blatant flaunting of them irrespective of their content.

Exactly I agree. Our laws around public interest work. We don't need privacy laws. It's the obsession with the tabloids in flogging purient stuff about celebrities that is the issue. They dress it up as freedom of the press when it's nothing more than making money. They have freedom to print if it's in the public interest to do so.

No you are not in a minority of one. What the Mail have exposed themselves as is a bully. PJS won't care as it's playing right into his court. If I was being cynical I would think that Hacked Off are working with PJS on this. Tabloids falling into a trap. All to publish a load of nonsense.

I don't think people are actually interested in the details of the sexually activity between consenting adults, I think what they are interested in is whether someone with wealth and privilege can challenge the right to free speech and thereby silence the press. I think there would be exactly the same interest if the celebrity was trying to hide the fact that their great aunt once removed was a commandant in in the Hitler Youth. This story stopped being a sex scandal a long time ago and became about something much bigger.

I'm not famous so I can misbehave. I slept with my wife last night and she knows I'm sleeping with my friend with benefits tonight.

I don't care who knows.

Publish and be damned.

The mail are going on like little kids who have been told to behave and want to kick off and cause a scene to get their own way. Pathetic really

The tabloids are spinning this to the ill educated as freedom to hold the elites to account. It's nothing of the sort. It's about their freedom to print salacious stories to make money. Putting money in Murdoch et al pockets. If this story was about someone in public life (politician / royalty / judiciary) no injunction would have been granted. Footballers / Celebrities personal lives are not of public interest. They have no impact on our lives and are not subject to bribery in terms of taxpayers money or ability to make decisions.

The wider danger here is opening the doors for folks to publish whatever they want about a persons sex life. If folks fall out they can create whatever story they want on line about someone and a ruling from Supreme Court in a case like this means it would be ok. It may not make the national press but purient details on social media amongst folks that know them is just was devastating to that individual. Folks in their clamber for this to come out are in fact exposing every man and women in UK to vengeful folk publishing details of their sex life.

Is it in the public interest has to be the criteria by which these stories are measured

'Cover-up' makes it sound as if there is something illegal or reprehensible going on. Let's be clear here - this is about perfectly legal, consensual, adult sexual but extra marital relations, which (unusually) the other spouse was totally aware of, so it can't even be said he was being 'cheated' on. This is not about a celebrity using his money to 'buy' protection from publicity an ordinary person could not, but a celebrity being forced to use his money to enforce his legal rights because there would be no question of a paper buying such a story if a celebrity were not involved.

Lucky we have fabulously educated people like you to tell us what to think instead of the mucky working class tabloids. Now, where's my cap so I don't forget to doff it, will a forelock do instead O great wise one

I'm not interested in their lives, neither is speedyboi, we are interested in how wealth and power can be used to censor the press when you have frequently invited the press into your children's lives when it suits. This is not printing photos and stories of a celeb attending a NA meeting or a celeb who uses a prostitute whose child I have never seen in a glossy and who has never made public statements about how lucky their children are to have them as parents.

And who determines what public interest is? The very establishment who want privacy laws enforced of course.

We would be much better of with freedom of speech laws like in America.

How on earth can the Mail be seen as a bully. The bully is PJS who has been getting his lawyers to write to numerous websites and publications demanding they remove all trace of this story from their websites/publications.

Well you prove my point. This is about a celebrity using their wealth to uphold the law. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Spot on.

I didn't read, click on a link or even post a link to it. I saw the front page via Sky when previewing the papers this morning.

I don't like the Mail but I don't think anyone should have the power to gag them either. The story is already being published all over the world. The UK is the only place it cannot be reported so the whole thing is a farce, If the Mail is taking the piss they earned the right to as that is what this now is, a farce.

Seconded.


I find that rude and unnecessary.
Whether or not the rest of the post would have interested me, I have no idea as I stopped reading after the emboldened part.

Public interest is ultimately determined by a court of law. Exactly as it is in this instance.

Who says the establishment want privacy laws? This case is not about the establishment in any case it's about a celebrity. The establishment as you call it fall into the public interest criteria anyway.

Careful what you ask for, US Freedom of Speech Laws means that Huge Multinational Corporations can pump millions too fund Particular Politicans (Money is Speech). So Super PACS can fill every space of advertising for whatever campaign they're promoting ("Ask your Congressman why he's not voting for our rights to dump toxic waste into the lake you're getting all your fresh water from")

make that two. The laws and the press's own standard code should be adhered to

It wasn't directed at you so I'm a bit confused why you would take offence. Don't you think its rude to claim that only the ill educated would have concerns about this case, that those of us who think this way fail to understand the case?

In this case the tabloids sicken me and just show themselves up as the hypocrites they really are. A government minister sleeping with a dominatrix prostitute , seeing a porn star who saw confidential papers and more was supressed as the tabloids and media said he was entitled to a private life , nothing apparently to do with the fact the man was at that time the main one overseeing what rules may be forced upon them with regards to privacy.

Then a celeb who is not breaking the law has a sex story within his relationship and suddenly it is public interest and the gutter press vow to fight for our freedom to read what they wish to print.

As I say , bloody hypocrites.

Sadly I suspect that as this involves gay sex it is of more interest to the tabloids.

Should be able to print what you want and damn the consequences. Too many people who take offence over little things, look away, switch off. Some people on here are similar to the Twitter mob and so quick to take offence.

It's a showbiz story, deals with sexulaity shenanigans, infidelity and I believe people are interested in reading about it. If you are not, don't buy the publication, nobody is forcing you to purchase the aper or read the website are they.

It is ridiculous that others elsewhere can read it but not parts of the UK. The law really an ass.

I would choose pre Leveson everytime rather than a bunch of celeb luvvies and Guardianista's moaning about our press. I bloody lover our press, great choice of tabloids and broadsheets to read. Plus anything that gets the lefties red in the face and their knickers in a twists is fine by me.

Be careful what you wish for. Would you want a neutered press? Is that good for democracy? Would some of the people here who appear to support Leveson, be so welcoming if the probe was widened to include the Internet and forums such as this?

If anything, Leveson was payback for the British press exposing the MP's expenses scandals. Would that have been so easily printed in a post Leveson world?

Said it before and I will say it again, I find it highly amusing people on a showbiz gossip forum, salivating over blinds, guessing on celebs sexulaity and other rumours, but supporting an injunction on a tabloid paper! They wanted to tell the other story, other party willing to tell it. It's not lies (that well worn line given over tabloid stories) and it should be told, you don't want to read it, fine, then don't. There is a wider issue of creeping privacy laws generally into society.