Max Moseley sues Google!

[sswishbone]

Over the whole prostitute affair, more here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28550035

[noiceinmydrink]

So he's gone ahead and done it, eh? I think I remember there were talks about Max suing Google a few months ago.

In any case, I wouldn't be doing this if I were Max. I mean, if I were 69 years old and still getting the ladies I'd hang the pics on my wall with bold captions screaming "I'VE STILL GOT IT".

[watka]

I predict the return of the ASMSW5PG tag on the podcast!

[FMecha]

I predict the return of the ASMSW5PG tag on the podcast!

The actual acronym was ANTSMSW5PG, actually.

[Dj_bereta]

I remember when Barrichello tried to sue Google because of some communities and false profiles in Orkut making mockery of him.

[CoopsII]

He makes me laugh does Mr Mosley. Many people, particulary non-F1 fans, will have forgotten all about this sorry affair and yet he chooses of his own volition to thrust it back into the spotlight. How many people will now Google (other search engines are available) him to see the very images he makes out he doesnt want people to see. The cynic in me wonders if he's getting off on all of it as it isn't the first time he's popped up after the fact to seemingly remind us all of his non-nazi themed escapades.

[W12]

I had already forgotten about the "incident" but now he brings it back to the spotlight all by himself... What the bathplug?

[CoopsII]

I had already forgotten about the "incident" but now he brings it back to the spotlight all by himself... What the bathplug?

Brilliant. I could do with you to back up all my opinions and claims as everyone else here thinks I'm an idiot.

[W12]

I had already forgotten about the "incident" but now he brings it back to the spotlight all by himself... What the bathplug?

Brilliant. I could do with you to back up all my opinions and claims as everyone else here thinks I'm an idiot.

Sorry, I didn't notice your post

[DanielPT]

I had already forgotten about the "incident" but now he brings it back to the spotlight all by himself... What the bathplug?

Brilliant. I could do with you to back up all my opinions and claims as everyone else here thinks I'm an idiot.

It's Coops and Coopser!

Over the whole prostitute affair, more here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28550035

Typical Max. He just couldn't use the "right to forget" tool. No, he just had to sue. As for the previous High Court rule about the pictures not being of public interest, it could not be further from the real world where in this day and age the celebrity cult is stronger than ever.

[CoopsII]

It's Coops and Coopser!

I have a rapists wit.

[watka]

I predict the return of the ASMSW5PG tag on the podcast!

The actual acronym was ANTSMSW5PG, actually.

Of course! Its actually the ANT bit that is the only bit that Mosley has a problem with, rather than SMSW5P!

[Cynon]

Makes you wonder if Bernie will follow suit in regards to his bribery case.

[takagi_for_the_win]

So he's gone ahead and done it, eh? I think I remember there were talks about Max suing Google a few months ago.

In any case, I wouldn't be doing this if I were Max. I mean, if I were 69 years old and still getting the ladies I'd hang the pics on my wall with bold captions screaming "I'VE STILL GOT IT".

Brilliant.

[mario]

I had already forgotten about the "incident" but now he brings it back to the spotlight all by himself... What the bathplug?

Brilliant. I could do with you to back up all my opinions and claims as everyone else here thinks I'm an idiot.

It's Coops and Coopser!

Over the whole prostitute affair, more here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28550035

Typical Max. He just couldn't use the "right to forget" tool. No, he just had to sue. As for the previous High Court rule about the pictures not being of public interest, it could not be further from the real world where in this day and age the celebrity cult is stronger than ever.

I would assume that one reason why he might be wary over the "right to be forgotten" ruling is the fact that the UK's House of Lords have indicated that they think that the EU's ruling is unreasonable and overly vague, and both industry and national governments are pressuring the EU to clarify their ruling.

It is therefore possible that a request under the "right to be forgotten" ruling might not be successful if the ruling was clarified in a way that made his application ineligible or, given that Google and several other search engines are preparing a legal challenge, could even be revoked entirely if the original ruling is overturned.

As an aside sswishbone, the term "public interest" does have an added dimension beyond simply "interesting to read about" - it is a term used to denote something as being in the welfare or benefit of the public, and the ruling was that there was no benefit to the public in knowing about the sexual habits of Mosely. That said, I agree that in many ways it is perhaps rash of Mosely to launch this case - it's inevitably raking up old memories about the affair that many were happy to leave dormant, such that it's brought far more attention to the event than photos on Google might have brought.

[jackanderton]

Just because there's a celebrity cult doesn't mean something is in the public interest. Whatever your personal views are on his sexual preferences, so long as it's all consensual and legal- which it is- it's nothing to do with anyone.

As for his pursuit of the matter, he probably thinks he can't have been derobed anymore thoroughly than he was at the time. I have never liked him but I must say I admire his bravery and remember he has spent the past several years arguing for legal reform on the basis that currently only wealthy people like he can afford justice, and that can't be allowed to carry on.

So through gritted teeth, go Max.

[DanielPT]

I would assume that one reason why he might be wary over the "right to be forgotten" ruling is the fact that the UK's House of Lords have indicated that they think that the EU's ruling is unreasonable and overly vague, and both industry and national governments are pressuring the EU to clarify their ruling.

It is therefore possible that a request under the "right to be forgotten" ruling might not be successful if the ruling was clarified in a way that made his application ineligible or, given that Google and several other search engines are preparing a legal challenge, could even be revoked entirely if the original ruling is overturned.

It is not because one might think it doesn't work that it won't work. And at the moment, right before any legal challenge from Google or others, the request is available and in use. Max should have gone through that proceeding before deciding to sue based on how satisfied he would be with the results. That he jumped right into sueing seems rushed and ill-advised to me.

As an aside sswishbone, the term "public interest" does have an added dimension beyond simply "interesting to read about" - it is a term used to denote something as being in the welfare or benefit of the public, and the ruling was that there was no benefit to the public in knowing about the sexual habits of Mosely. That said, I agree that in many ways it is perhaps rash of Mosely to launch this case - it's inevitably raking up old memories about the affair that many were happy to leave dormant, such that it's brought far more attention to the event than photos on Google might have brought.

Just because there's a celebrity cult doesn't mean something is in the public interest. Whatever your personal views are on his sexual preferences, so long as it's all consensual and legal- which it is- it's nothing to do with anyone.

I have no issues about the ruling in itself. As both you and mario said, it should be irrelavant and in no public interest whatsoever what Mosley does in his intimacy. My take was just wider in as such many people these days, right or wrong I won't judge, find that such things are interesting to read about and that they take a leisure benefit in it.

As for his pursuit of the matter, he probably thinks he can't have been derobed anymore thoroughly than he was at the time. I have never liked him but I must say I admire his bravery and remember he has spent the past several years arguing for legal reform on the basis that currently only wealthy people like he can afford justice, and that can't be allowed to carry on.

I find this rather ironic. I mean he argues in favour of legal reforms because only wealthy people can use it but still, when it comes to waste taxpayers money with such lawsuits he is at the forefront. Yes, because when he comes knocking at some court's door begging to something that had already been forgotten to be forgotten, it is UK taxpayers that pay for it.

[jackanderton]

I don't see how that's a hypocrisy. Surely it's self-evident that if the problem is only rich people can afford justice then only rich people can afford to challenge the problem and break the status quo. It's sad but there it is.

Yes, because when he comes knocking at some court's door begging to something that had already been forgotten to be forgotten, it is UK taxpayers that pay for it.

Likewise he clearly isn't doing this for his own personal benefit- as has already been pointed out- he will have known this would have brought it back to the public consciousness, because he isn't utterly stupid as some people here seem to be implying. He's doing so to ensure people's privacy isn't invaded in the future. News stories can be about anyone, famous or otherwise, and once people become a public figure through those stories that shouldn't give carte blanche for newspapers to intrude on their private lives, only in cases where there is a deep hypocrisy or some suspicion of criminality.

It is sad that ordinary people can't financially afford to make this stand as they would have so much more sympathy- but victims of hacking did get to take the stand at the Leveson inquiry- and even though the government decided not to implement it because they are in the pockets of the press, the outcome of the enquiry was a report heavily in their favour.

[DanielPT]

I don't see how that's a hypocrisy. Surely it's self-evident that if the problem is only rich people can afford justice then only rich people can afford to challenge the problem and break the status quo. It's sad but there it is.

No hypocrisy as the man is just using the current system as he is entitled to. It is just ironic, though. And I still find those kind of lawsuits a waste of time and resources.

Yes, because when he comes knocking at some court's door begging to something that had already been forgotten to be forgotten, it is UK taxpayers that pay for it.

Likewise he clearly isn't doing this for his own personal benefit- as has already been pointed out- he will have known this would have brought it back to the public consciousness, because he isn't utterly stupid as some people here seem to be implying. He's doing so to ensure people's privacy isn't invaded in the future. News stories can be about anyone, famous or otherwise, and once people become a public figure through those stories that shouldn't give carte blanche for newspapers to intrude on their private lives, only in cases where there is a deep hypocrisy or some suspicion of criminality.

But that's just it. He legitimately sued news of the world and won which was the most sensible ruling given all the evidence. I thought that was the lawsuit which prevented newspapers to do what they please and intrude into people private lives. I still think he achieved that goal. As for this lawsuit? I do wonder what he wants by digging all this stuff out. It is not like he can erase history, even if a judge says so...

[MorbidelliObese]

What next, suing the Wayback Archive? Just to make really sure?

But yeah, as of now typing "max mosley google" into Google Images doesn't really make pleasant viewing!