Mosley told the court he had an interest in sadomasochism going back 45 years, but said he found the idea of Nazi sex fantasies abhorrent. He said he and the women acted out a German prison scenario, with no Nazi overtones.
Really, there's not much more that can (or must) be said with respect to the facts. Judge for yourself:
So why the blog? Because Mosley sued the News of the World, for invasion of privacy, and in part for falsely claiming that there was a Nazi angle to his, ahem, hobby. And, with a speed that would spin heads in an American court, the UK tribunal completed a trial and came down with a decision awarding Mosley $120,000 in damages and legal costs of about $1.7 million.
In the U.S., aspects of this case may well have turned out differently, as Mosley's prominent position in a popular sport would have made him a public figure, held to a higher standard for a defamation cause of action. Put up against an "actual malice" standard, it would be hard to say that the tabloid had acted with reckless disregard for the truth in using "Nazi" to describe a German prison scenario in which one participant wore a Luftwaffe jacket. Seriously, how big a leap must one make to get there from an abusive "German prison" fantasy? Does that not, by itself, bring Nazism to mind? In Mosley's defense, utterly bizarre as it is, at least the role-playing prostitutes suggest that he is in prison for committing an actual crime, rather than for his ethnic origin.
A final note - although U.S. law on the subject varies widely from state to state, many jurisdictions pose harsh penalties for surreptitious audiotaping. In Florida at least, the defendants would have been subject to a fairly stiff penalty - although not stiffer than the penalty faced by Mosley for being such a naughty prisoner!
2 comments:
I have a very trivial and mostly unrelated question that I'm hoping you can answer, Brian.
I was having a discussion with another attorney where the topic was celebrities that sold pictures of their newborn babies. Sounds boring, I know, but it got interesting because he was of the impression that once a celebrity voluntarily sells pictures of their children that the kids become public figures. I just had a couple of questions:
(1) Is this true? (2) Are some children of celebrities public figures no matter what? (3) And am I right to assume that the laws on who the papparazzi may harass with constant picture-taking are different than the public figure rule used for defamation?
With regard to those questions, what makes someone a "public figure" is not an exact science, but usually hinges on legitimate public interest in that person based on their actions. There have been several cases, however, where courts have found that victims of highly publicized crimes were public figures because of the public interest in crime.
The designation of an individual as a public figure, by the way, has been held to have much the same significance in defamation suits and right-of-privacy suits. Nevertheless, it is equally important to remember that the "public figure" designation is not a blank check for the media to say whatever it wants about the subject. If falsehoods are spread with malicious intent, or at least a reckless disregard for the truth, an action will lie. If an invasion of privacy is particularly extreme (planting cameras in someone's shower, for example) a cause of action will be permitted no matter how famous the person.
In the case of celebrity children, there may be a strong public interest, but it is hard to gauge how "legitimate" that interest is. Certainly if the parents take care to safeguard the privacy of the children, extreme efforts to capture images of those children will amount to a tort. However, if those children are found on public sidewalks or travel on public roads, where the papparazzi have an equal right to travel, the papparazzi presence only becomes an issue where the parents (and children) are impeded in their right to get where they are going.
Post a Comment