Should our 'free press' be shackled?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239466/David-Cameron-Dont-shackle-free-Press-say-86-MPs-peers-eve-Leveson-report.html

Or would this be the thin end of the wedge, where we would finish up with a press controlled by politicians?

[IggyB]

The actions of the press that have most riled the public are already criminal matters e.g. phone hacking, data theft and possibly stalking (though I'm not sure on the legislation for the last one). I think if there was a centralised group that supported the police bring action against press organisations that take part in that sort of behaviour then that would be a good start.

[emmie]

no, however transgressions like hacking peoples phones by journalists should be punished severely, there can be no excuse for hacking Milly Dowlers family, none whatsoever.

[bazwillrun]

theres no excuse for newspapers to be hacking anybody

[jake-the-peg]

You don't need to be an expert to see that the current system of self-regulation is badly broken and has lead to criminal behaviour and large scale cover ups of that criminality.

To now whine about shackling the press is a nonsense

there is a well established public interest defennse and that needs to stand


But their idea of a free press is one that's free to doorstep celebrities and stick cameras in their windows to satisfy the gossip columns.


I suggest an acid test - would the recommended changes have prevented publication of the MP expenses scandle?

Would they have prevented the phone hacking scandle?

[emmie]

ok so we shackle the press, but every man and his dog puts info on the internet, as we have seen in recent days, about individuals they don't know, unlikely to ever have met or meet in the future. They can and do say what they like, AB is no different. Some of the info might get pulled for salacious content, but some trolls out there can malign you, and your career, life can end up in ruins, worse than the press wouldn't you agree..

[jno]

so we shouldn't bother with small criminals (like Rupert Murdoch!) because there are bigger criminals out there like the internet? I disagree.

[emmie]

we have seen what making comments, gossip does, about Lord McAlpine,
he has sought legal redress for the vile comments that any number of people have made, not least that idiot Sally Bercow, the Speaker of the House wife.

[jake-the-peg]

No I wouldn't agree

There has been of late a lot of arrests in response to peoples' actions on line.

People arrested for posting pictures on facebook for example

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested-burning-poppy-facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206043/Neil-Swinburne-22-arrested-Dale-Cregan-Facebook-tribute-page.html

http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/uk/arrest-over-offensive-april-jones-facebook-post

and someone on this site posted about the police arresting him over a supposedly racist post on facebook

I'm not defending all of these people but no I wouldn't agree people are free to do what they like on line

[emmie]

many are, and many do. You cannot persecute, prosecute millions of internet users, it just isn't feasible.

[jno]

would you believe it, the Sun's printed lies about someone

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/28/louis-walsh-500000-libel-irish-sun

Half a million euros in damages, and good luck to him. But why should he have to be slandered and then hire lawyers to sort it out because a newspaper doesn't bother checking the truth of what it prints?

[emmie]

yes and internet users do the same,

[Canary42]

Our Press is far from Free - it is considerably constrained by the bigoted views of its Proprietors.

[rojash]

It's interesting that the Mail (not exactly renowned for its constructive investigative journalism - but pretty famous for demonising innocent people and filling its web site with telephoto-lens "candid" shots of celebrities in various states of undress) should devote almost an entire issue to fighting off any form of statutory regulation.

[emmie]

one thing, you don't have to buy a newspaper, or watch the tv news, nor participate in chat on an internet site.

[Gromit]

The problem is, all this wrong doing was while the Newspapers were supposed to be regulating themselves. It clearly wasn't working.

Not sure the alternative has to be for the press to be shackled by MPs.

Why need a system that is independent of both the newspapers and Downing Street. It does not have to be one or the other.

Self regulation has proved over and over again to have failed, and the newspapers have only themselves to blame if a more stringent rules are introduced.

[emmie]

if the press are regulated more and more, and i am not suggesting that what they have done in recent years with phone hacking was right, then aren't we going down the China, Russia route. Stop the press from bringing matters to our notice because someone yells louder than the others about their freedom being invaded. One other thing, no one moans, gets up in arms or has a say about the fact we have more CCTV cameras monitoring our every move than almost anywhere on the planet, that isn't freedom, that is a totalitarian state, thinking it knows best, and how to control it's citizens.

[rojash]

"aren't we going down the China, Russia route."
No. All we need is a clear set of rules that ensure that the press behave responsibly, that there are clear defences for the press in terms of public interest, and that these standards are legally enforceable. The public at large have to operate within a defined legal framework - if someone suggested that we should be self-regulating, you'd think it was ludicrous, so why is it reasonable to think that the press should be any different?

[Gromit]

There are rules already there.

They need someone other than themselves to make sure the comply with the rules. It does not have to be the Government, but it does need to be someone without a vested interest in making money from newspapers. It is the pursuit of profit which has caused editors to break the law.

There are plenty of professional persons who are not linked to newspapers who could act as an official watchdog.

[LazyGun]

Self -Regulation has been shown not to work. For the papers to take their obligations seriously, and in order to reign in the worst excesses of their need to manufacture sensationalist stories, a regulatory scheme that has teeth is long overdue - and the only way the papers will take a regulatory system seriously is through some form of statutory obligation.

The current system is self-evidently a joke and not fit for purpose - the Express group of newspapers does not even belong to the PCC, for example, because it is not obliged, by law, to participate within the regulatory environment.

The papers are trying to claim they will be shackled, that this will infringe the right of free expression -that the rich and famous will be uninvestigated - that is all nonsense. They will always have the public interest defence to fall back on - it will just be harder for them to justify snooping for salacious gossip.

[Canary42]

This is the sort of thing our "Free Press" gets up to - bribing stooges to make false allegations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20524505