The Freedom and Responsibility of the Press

Make no mistake about it: freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in a democratic society. They do matter and they do need protected. And perhaps they need protected most of all from governments. But saying that I do not believe the brouhaha stirred up by the Press this week over plans to introduce a framework of press regulation is anything other than a deeply cynical attempt to protect business interests of papers that peddle scurrilous gossip as news.

Near apocalyptic headlines about the end of press freedom have screamed out from bastions of freedom such as The Sun and The Daily Mail all week long but it just won't wash. The truth is that the tabloid press in this country have operated for years as if freedom of the press means them being above the law. The whole phone tapping scandal is merely the most obvious example of this kind of gutter journalism.

It's a cliche, but it's true: with freedom must go responsibility. Far too often the press has acted with no responsibility and with unfettered licence rather than dignified liberty.

Something needs to be done. I am not sure the proposed scheme is the right thing however. What I would do is even more radical perhaps but expensive and so unlikely to see the light of day. But if we did it, we would retain full press freedom and get rid of the need for a Press Regulator (Censor?). It's simply this - change the law so that individuals pursuing a newspaper or magazine for libel or defamation actions are eligible for civil legal aid. As well as damages, the courts should also have powers to issue orders regarding press apologies, corrections, etc. At the moment only the very rich can afford to sue in such case and I've never thought that was right. Imagine if only the rich could get justice for physical assaults? Why should it be that assaults on character are only protected for the rich and famous?