Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (privacy and free expression) are not always in conflict. Ask a journalist or editor to name their anonymous source and they will see this attack on privacy as a broadside on journalistic freedom (see the case of Suzanne Breen threatened with imprisonment for refusing to name a source and the case taken to the Court of Human Rights by the Financial Times and others concerning a requirement to name the source of a story about the takeover of Interbrew.) Further, some of the newspapers and pundits who rail against a "privacy law" are the greatest critics of "Big Brother" when he is a government rather than a media empire.
It is understandable that Mr Mosley should feel sore at a judgment recognising his poor treatment by the press but finding his proposed solution - in reality a form of prior censorship - too dangerous to free speech, but the Court undoubtedly struck the right balance in this case.
The principles which the Court applied in reaching its judgment won’t just be tested when the tabloids splash details of a celebrity’s sex life across the front page but will also come into play when journalists want to report on a corporation's unethical activities or even a politician's expenses.
Parliament has long accepted that Article 8 requires it to create a legislative framework governing intrusions on privacy by the state - search warrants, telephone taps etc. - and even to prevent phone hacking by the press or others. But it has ducked legislating to strike the balance between personal privacy and media freedom and left that exceptionally tricky task to the courts.
Perhaps it is now time for Parliament to pass legislation which seeks to balance these interests. But for as long as Parliament isn’t prepared to enter this minefield politicians should lay off trashing the judges who are doing their best to fill the void. It’s surely time for politicians to put up or shut up.
