“Although AAA v Associated predates PJS v News Group, it is not inconsistent with Mance’s principles. It adds another layer. The case is rather muddied by the mother’s inconsistency of approach to her child’s privacy, but there is the overwhelming sense that these reports of Johnson’s “recklessness” in his private life give us relevant material to judge his public persona – and his fitness for high office (assuming anyone still honestly believes him to be so fitted).”
It is open season in the UK press on MP Boris Johnson’s “colourful” private life as it is revealed that he and his wife are divorcing. He is alleged to be a serial adulterer with one woman said to have had an abortion as a result of a liasison with him and another having had an illegitimate child.
But here’s the legal issue: could Johnson, in light of the UK Supreme Court “celebrity threesome” judgment, get injunctions against publication of such material? Lord Mance, explaining that judgment (PJS v News Group), declared:
“There is no public interest, however much it may be of interest to some members of the public, in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them. It is different if the story has some bearing…
View original post 2,222 more words
| truthaholics 