First it was Greg Oden.  Now, it's Tiger Woods.

According to Sports by Brooks, Tiger's lawyers got an injunction stopping publication of nude pictures of Tiger, presumably in the act with one of is gaggle of mistresses.

A British soccer player got a similar injunction in December for roughly being in the same situation.

But now a British high court judge has thrown it all out saying that the spiking of the stories is simply a dodge to retain endorsements rather than an invasion of privacy.

As astounding as this sounds, apparently in Britain, one's bedroom activities are open to public scrutiny. 

I don't care if you are considered a public figure, your public life should be open to discussion, not what you do when you are off the links or the court or the stage.  When it is something like DUI or an arrest for being coked up, sure that may merit some headlines (are you listening Rip Torn?)  But who you sleep with, where, when and the way you like it is nobody's damned business and should be protected whether you are a celebrity or not.  To say that a public figure gives up all rights to their privacy is absurd and troubling.

Hopefully, in this country, judges will allow individuals, even famous ones, a little dignity. Sure, Tiger was wrong, sure he deserves to get reported on and maybe even ridiculed for being a complete irresponsible moron with s private life.  But again, who among us really wants to see Tiger's three iron or him tapping in?  Seriously.  I'll be fine with the details and I'm already sick of that.