The footballer who took out a super injunction to keep an extra-marital affair secret may yet change our laws for good.
Judges have been interpreting parts of the Human Rights’ Act (HRA) and applying it as they see fit.
Their argument is, that as Parliament passed the HRA, this was its intention.
The effect was to create a privacy law, in all but name.
Freedom of both speech and the press are the bedrock of any democracy.
Inevitably, this same freedom, which is supposed to expose wrong-doers to the light, will also serve up private peccadilloes to the tabloids.
We are all entitled to a private life, but to try to legally enforce a secret is the point at which it all goes wrong, especially when these gagging orders are available only to those who can afford them.
This premier league footballer, for example, was happy to portray himself as a devoted family man, although he must have known the risk he was taking when he tiptoed, allegedly, into another woman’s bed.
Clearly, he thought it was morally debatable, because he spent a fortune on what turned out to be a fig leaf of secrecy to keep his behaviour under wraps.
The consequences of being found out are often catastrophic.
Years ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was caught kerb crawling.
His wife later committed suicide.
Max Mosely saw his family life devastated after his exposure.
Clearly, the DPP’s activity was illegal. Mosely’s - while unorthodox - was ultimately private and broke no laws.
The public’s right to know should not be confused with what they might like to know.
This whole issue is not helped by a celebrity culture, which wallows in titillation. Many of those exposed seem to welcome the publicity.
And while all this tittle-tattle bores most of us to death, it will continue if men and women risk all for sex.
Parliament alone has the power to introduce a privacy law – I hope it doesn’t.
There’s an old adage: if you don’t want to get caught, don’t do it.