The court case clearly is irrelevant to FIA's decision about keep Mosley in charge. The video has already been published and may or may not have an effect on their business. Whether the newspaper had the right to publish the video and whether the publishing has in fact damaged Mosley's reputation has nothing to do with FIA's business.

I also think that Mosley's sexual preferences don't impact his capability to run FIA. Him having Nazi sympathies is rather more serious. In an ideal world, FIA would make a detached business decision.

That said, I suspect that many people won't judge things in such a detached manner. For this reason, Mercedes-Benz surely should not want to be associated with this guy, and I don't see any way for him to stay on.

 Anonymous -- 7/17/2008 3:23 PM  

I can't really think of an analogous case. It tends to fall into an area that courts typically deem "private" (sexual relations). And I recall a judge in the U.S. agreeing with Pamela Anderson and Brett Michaels that their "sex tape" provided no social value and therefore was not newsworthy. I'd say he's got a pretty good case in England, and he'd probably prevail in the U.S. too. It's pretty bad.

He has a possible claim for false light as well. He is made to seem pathetic and ridiculous, and that he lacks good taste ("a secret sadomasochist sex pervert"), not to mention the Nazi references. There is precedent even in the U.S. that would support Mosley.

And what are the damages? A lot....

 Rick Karcher -- 7/17/2008 3:58 PM  

Rick,

Good points. On the false light issue, I see your point, but the doctrine is limited due to the malice standard that was extended from defamation law. The intrusion and embarassing private facts would be stronger, as you note.

 Mark Conrad -- 7/17/2008 4:54 PM  

Mark,

I'm aware of the cases that have stated in general terms that the defamation law actual malice standard extends to false light claims, but it's never been clear at all how the actual malice standard even applies to false light claims because a false light claim doesn't require the statement to be false -- which is what distinguishes the claim from defamation. So assuming Mosley is a public figure, he doesn't need to prove that the publisher knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to its falsity. Instead, Mosley would argue it's true, but that the context in which he is being presented degrades him and makes him look like something he isn't.

 Rick Karcher -- 7/17/2008 7:26 PM  

Post a Comment