Mosley on Dacre – and why sex isn’t interesting

Blade knew many things about Max Mosley – some, indeed, that he wished he didn’t – but he was hitherto unaware of his literary skills. But the Formula 1 man has stepped into the fray and offered his thoughts on Paul Dacre’s speech to the Society of Editors. He does so on the pages of the Guardian, and the piece can be found here.

Mosley argues his case eloquently. He is right to point out that far from being on a one-man crusade to create new law, Mr Justice Eady is merely applying existing law. Mosley points out that the Human Rights Act 1998 conferred statutory protection on “respect for privacy and family life” when it became law in 2000. He could well have added that judicial precedent in the law of confidence had already established a viable right to privacy, one which has been expanded by the courts over the past 15 years but which is certainly not new.

The Daily Mail editor’s remarkable speech referred to the “wretched” Human Rights Act – a piece of legislation which also enshrines the right to freedom of expression – but otherwise ignored the reality of recent UK legal developments. Mosley goes so far as to say that, in context, Dacre’s attack on Eady J. was “disingenuous” and “dishonest” and, in truth, driven by fear of falling newspaper sales.

“Without scandal,” he wrote, “tabloid sales will decline. To keep this squalid industry afloat, an unrestricted right to publicise the sex lives of others is necessary, so the judiciary must be silenced.” For Mosley, Dacre’s moralising reveals that he is more than merely out-of-touch with modern society; it amounts to sheer, base hypocrisy.

All of which is cogently put, but Mosley also contends that “No reasonable adult will ever object to (or even be interested in) what others do in their bedrooms provided it is consensual, lawful and in private” (editor’s italics). Here, though, he is wrong. The problem is that almost everyone, reasonable or unreasonable, civilised or uncivilised, is interested in what other people do in their bedrooms. From Chaucer and Rabelais to Apollinaire and Miller, all the way to today’s multi-billion dollar pornography industry, consensual, lawful and private sex is interesting. People won’t object to it, but they will, if it emerges into the public domain, find it fascinating. This is not to misappropriate Thoreau and say that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation because they’re constantly thinking about other people’s sex lives, but it is to acknowledge that our collective interest in sex drives some aspects of tabloid (and broadsheet) reportage, as well as elements of the TV, film and publishing industries.

Mosley’s argument that no one is interesed in other people’s sex lives disrupts an otherwise fine piece, but acknowledging this is not to endorse a media free-for-all. Yes, sex is interesting, but no, personal and private details of one’s sex life should not be disclosed, sans consent, to the world. But if people want to put them out there, that, too, is a matter for them. Indeed, the extraordinarily rapid proliferation of hugely popular websites enabling consenting adults to broadcast home sex videos – a development which, as reported recently by the FT, has emerged as a significant threat to the ‘traditional’ pornography industry – suggests that many people can’t get enough of others’ lawful, consensual and willingly revealed sex lives.

Portrait of Paul Dacre courtesy of former Mail journalist Jane Kelly, who told the Guardian that she painted Dacre as quite austere, being “the editor loves the 50s – he wants people to go back to a time of discipline”. Kelly also said the other figure in the picture represents the Daily Mail’s darkest fears: “The Mail has always been slightly prurient and a bit scared of sex and I wanted this figure to represent that – it’s slightly nasty and a bit threatening.”

• Written by admin
• Filed under Communication, Legal Business
• Leave a comment