Two big judgments out of the United Kingdom that, in all likelihood, won't affect us Americans one bit. But since we've all been on the Facebook and engaged in a Nazi orgy once or twice, they're worth schooling you on so you don't run into the same fate as a pair of gentlemen who had to sue to restore their good names. (Well, one of the guys who sued probably only soiled his name more.)

First up is Mathew Firsht, who found himself the victim of a fake Facebook profile set up by former school friend Grant Raphael. He accused Raphael of creating the page with a mix of authentic info (name, photo, birthday) and fake details (sexual orientation, political views). The fake profile stayed online for some 16 days before being removed, giving Firsht enough reason to sue the fellow. And win. A court demanded Raphael pay some $43,000 in damages, a sum that might've been a smidge less had he not tried to explain the fake profile page was created by somebody who snuck into a back room at Firsht's home during a party and whipped up the profile. The judge called the defense "utterly far-fetched."

Moving on … to the maybe Nazi sex orgy.

Max Mosley has had his day in court — and it turned out quite well for him. When lawsuit magnet News of the World ran a photo story (with web video available) about a supposed Nazi-themed S&M sexy orgy Mosley had with a few hired girls, he decided not to cower from the press, but to steamroll over them with libel and invasion of privacy charges. To Mosley, he had simply engaged in "a perfectly harmless activity, provided it is between consenting adults and… in private." And the News' assertion that it was Nazi themed? Not only wrong, says Mosley, but especially hurtful because his father Sir Oswald Mosley led Britain's fascist party. The court agreed.

But not just on any grounds.

British law doesn't exactly grant Mosley the protections he was seeking. Rather, the European Union's rulebook does, and he sued on those grounds.

And his case points to a flummoxing snafu in the rulebook: Printing the details of what happened was not an invasion of Mosley's privacy, but showing the video — which helped the News prove to readers its story was true — did violate his rights. Naomi Campbell was among the first to show this catch-22, when she sued the Daily Mirror for printing a photo of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Its photo was the damning part of the article.

"His success in the High Court means newspapers and broadcasters face a tougher battle to preserve the freedom of the press," says the BBC. Indeed. While the press there remains free to publish true allegations about public figures, they're being told they cannot back up their stories with visual evidence that might run afoul of privacy expectation. It's a system that cannot stand for very long. And will probably soon be challenged, whenever the next set of scandalous photos arrives.