Whilst stopping short of confirming that he intends to appeal the European Court's decision, Mosley, perhaps unsurprisingly, disagrees with those assessments – and insists examples such as his own are altogether more serious than the ongoing debate over whether super-injunctions should protect public figures from the media glare, prompted by the unregulated dissemination of information via the social-networking medium of Twitter
“As far as Twitter's
concerned, it's just that – Twitter
– it's one step up from the pub,” the Englishman told BBC Radio 4's Today
programme. “I think the Twitter
thing is just a temporary bit of hysteria in an attempt to try and get opposition to injunctions which shouldn't really happen. It's a very small number of people.
“That is completely different to a serious publication in a major national newspaper. Once they have published it, they can't unpublish it – they can't take it out of the public mind. You only need the freedom of the press when it's something that the public need to know; the story of people's sexual escapades...they are not matters of public interest. This is about whether newspapers should have the right to publicise very private aspects of people's lives which there's no public interest in at all – it's just purely for titillation and to sell newspapers.
“Worse than that, under the English legal system, if you sue, once the thing's out, you recover damages, you get your costs awarded, if you win – but the costs and damages are less than the bill from your solicitor, so you get the whole publicity repeated again in open court, on top of which you get a very large bill. That's not a remedy, and there should be a remedy under the Human Rights Act. I think it's a little bit sad, because there's a gap in the law which should have been closed – that is where the newspapers ambush people. It hasn't been closed, but maybe it will be one day. It's not finished yet.”