No sex please, we're journalists

The FIA chief's victory over the News of the World could well influence future cases when it comes to a right to privacy where someone's sex life in concerned.

Already we have people from the media bleating it could run contrary to the freedom of speech we value so much in this country.

Being a fellow hack you might expect me to agree with them. Actually, to use a technical expression, I think they're talking twaddle.

Or at least, that was my first thought.

Maybe my thinking runs contrary to every other journalist, but I really couldn't care less what someone gets up to behind closed doors. As long as you're doing a decent job in your public role, whatever floats your boat in private isn't my concern.

But then it dawned on me the freedom of speech lobby could have a point if the right to privacy extends beyond sexual practice and into the realms of something that is genuinely newsworthy.

In short, what exactly is 'the public interest'?

And that's the problem. Nobody really knows. Something that should be down to society as a whole is in reality quite subjective.

I like the judge in this case insisting he hasn't set a precedent - well, you sort of have m'lud. That's how the law works. At the very least you've laid down a principle.

I remember back at law school (I like throwing that in. It makes me feel like I haven't totally wasted my life), we were all wondering how the Human Rights Act (Article 8, right to privacy. Just to show off), would come into play.

Well, to some degree we now know. And if it's going to be used to make tabloid editors think twice before publishing kiss-and-tell stories you'll hear no complaints from me. The public interest argument in such cases is bunkum 99.9 per cent of the time.

I can only cope with so many stories of footballer's spanking sessions with blonde groupies anyway.

Besides, I'd like to believe newspapers serve a slightly higher purpose than describing a soap star's sexual prowess.

But if the same law could be interpreted to give public officials and influential celebrities free reign and guaranteed protection from the media, that can't be right.

So we are left with a difficult balancing act between the rights of the individual and the public right of free speech. I don't envy those judges and politicians whose decisions could tip the balance one way or the other.

I don't know what your thoughts are, but for the time being, I'm happy to collect splinters in my posterior on the subject.

I am though sorely tempted to back anything which keeps z-list celebrity sex marathons off my Sunday morning breakfast table. So to speak.