Seeing as North Korea, another shining light of democracy have named them now, it does make this ruling even more ridiculous.
Can argue all you want about the rights and wrongs, if it is in the public interest or not. Given the partners AIDS'S charity work and a sworn affidavit from the other party that no condom use was requested....it is worth raising. Never mind their use of children in photoshoots when they wish to use them, but then use them as human shields to protect against adverse publicity, again, hypocrisy.
Some people are blind to this, probably the glare of their monitors as they post their thousands of posts on this (and most probably others) sites.
I said it before and I will say it again, a lot of the hatred is towards the right wing press here, The Sun and Mail. If the story was about some Tory politician or donor and The Guardian wished to run it, I wonder if these posters would have the same opinion? Hmmmm
Backdoor privacy is dangerous, surley we should want a free press, enshrined in Law, as in the USA? Freedom of speech is so important, given we lambast other countries who apparently do not have it. Would these posters be supporting the policing of the Internet for instance....or is it just their tabloid hatred that clouds their judgement?
Unelected judges should not decide what the public want to read or not. They no doubt look down their noses at kiss and tells, etc, but the public should decide if they wish to read such stories by buying the publication or not. Nobody buys it, reads it or comments upon it, obviously not much interest there. However given the amount of threads and Internet chatter aboutthis story, you could argue there is.
The Mail published it in Scotland as they believed there is a wider interest of privacy concerns, they were not really interested in the story as much.
Should the other party in question have the right to tell his side of the story or not, without the treat of jail? I unquestionably believe that yes he does. Right to expression / freedom of speech should trump somebody's privacy concerns.
If the actions are so embarrassing and could harm their children, maybe they should not have participated in the first place? If they were aware that could be printed, maybe, just maybe it would not have happened. The treat of being exposed, for whatever misdemeanor, in the press is a good thing. Without that threat of exposure cover-up's happen and the truth is hidden, see president Mitterand in France for example