This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/press-need-not-fear-statutory-regulation

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The press need not fear statutory regulation The press need not fear regulation by statute
(35 minutes later)
Editors are concerned about the idea of a statute. Lord Justice Leveson has not reported yet, but from the Guardian to the Telegraph by way of the Mail there is concern he may propose a regulator for the press that is backed by legislation. This, it is argued, would by its very nature be bad for press freedom.Editors are concerned about the idea of a statute. Lord Justice Leveson has not reported yet, but from the Guardian to the Telegraph by way of the Mail there is concern he may propose a regulator for the press that is backed by legislation. This, it is argued, would by its very nature be bad for press freedom.
Why? There is the Rubicon argument: we may adopt an innocent-looking law now, but who is to say that in future less tolerant rulers won't exploit it to gag the press? And there is the licensing argument: if a statute made newspapers participate in a regulatory system, that would amount to licensing of the press, something not seen in centuries. Neither argument survives much scrutiny.Why? There is the Rubicon argument: we may adopt an innocent-looking law now, but who is to say that in future less tolerant rulers won't exploit it to gag the press? And there is the licensing argument: if a statute made newspapers participate in a regulatory system, that would amount to licensing of the press, something not seen in centuries. Neither argument survives much scrutiny.
Let's say we had a law creating a regulator, at arm's length from government and the industry, able to conduct investigations and impose fines. Would that in itself deal a blow to press freedom?Let's say we had a law creating a regulator, at arm's length from government and the industry, able to conduct investigations and impose fines. Would that in itself deal a blow to press freedom?
It is hard to see how. For a start, the industry can't object to regulation on principle because it has been insisting for 20 years that it had an effective regulator in the Press Complaints Commission (though it didn't). Second, there are decent arguments to suggest that statute is the best way to ensure a regulator has teeth and can be effective.It is hard to see how. For a start, the industry can't object to regulation on principle because it has been insisting for 20 years that it had an effective regulator in the Press Complaints Commission (though it didn't). Second, there are decent arguments to suggest that statute is the best way to ensure a regulator has teeth and can be effective.
Let's say next that 15 years from now we have an authoritarian government, seeking to control the press. Our regulator, under statute, is independent, so it has protection. For it to cease to be independent the statute would have to be changed through new legislation.Let's say next that 15 years from now we have an authoritarian government, seeking to control the press. Our regulator, under statute, is independent, so it has protection. For it to cease to be independent the statute would have to be changed through new legislation.
In other words, a future government seeking censorship powers would be in the same position with or without a regulation law: it would need to get a bill through parliament. And it's worth remembering that if we end up with an authoritarian government our problem will be precisely that: an authoritarian government. Whether there is a regulation law it might want to tinker with will be way down the scale of worries.In other words, a future government seeking censorship powers would be in the same position with or without a regulation law: it would need to get a bill through parliament. And it's worth remembering that if we end up with an authoritarian government our problem will be precisely that: an authoritarian government. Whether there is a regulation law it might want to tinker with will be way down the scale of worries.
What if the new, post-Leveson law included a clause requiring all the big newspaper publishers (those with revenues exceeding, say, £50m) to participate in the new regulatory regime? Would that amount to licensing?What if the new, post-Leveson law included a clause requiring all the big newspaper publishers (those with revenues exceeding, say, £50m) to participate in the new regulatory regime? Would that amount to licensing?
It is certainly a cherished principle that anyone can publish a newspaper if they can afford to, and that anyone who can find a place to publish may be a journalist. A requirement for large corporations to participate in an independent regulator is hardly in conflict with that. Indeed, in many industries participation in regulation is taken for granted as being for the public good. Nor would it be the first time that newspaper publishers were bound by statute: they must register with the tax authorities (newspapers are exempt from VAT); they can be sued for libel; they can be prosecuted for contempt of court or for breaking the Data Protection Act. They don't opt out of these laws and they shouldn't be able to opt out of independent regulation.It is certainly a cherished principle that anyone can publish a newspaper if they can afford to, and that anyone who can find a place to publish may be a journalist. A requirement for large corporations to participate in an independent regulator is hardly in conflict with that. Indeed, in many industries participation in regulation is taken for granted as being for the public good. Nor would it be the first time that newspaper publishers were bound by statute: they must register with the tax authorities (newspapers are exempt from VAT); they can be sued for libel; they can be prosecuted for contempt of court or for breaking the Data Protection Act. They don't opt out of these laws and they shouldn't be able to opt out of independent regulation.
But this is a perverse way of looking at things. The Rubicon and licensing arguments summon up unlikely and almost abstract hypotheses when we have before us a real, enduring press crisis that has been poisoning public life.But this is a perverse way of looking at things. The Rubicon and licensing arguments summon up unlikely and almost abstract hypotheses when we have before us a real, enduring press crisis that has been poisoning public life.
The Leveson inquiry heard of industrial-scale privacy intrusion, serial libel, relentless dishonesty and unethical conduct, some of it reaching into our politics and policing. Many vulnerable people have been harmed, from the Hillsborough families to the Dowlers, and it happened because rich, powerful newspapers have been unaccountable.The Leveson inquiry heard of industrial-scale privacy intrusion, serial libel, relentless dishonesty and unethical conduct, some of it reaching into our politics and policing. Many vulnerable people have been harmed, from the Hillsborough families to the Dowlers, and it happened because rich, powerful newspapers have been unaccountable.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle this and it can be done without impinging on press freedom. The judge's terms of reference actually require him to ensure his recommendations support press freedom, and at his hearings no voice was raised for state control of the press. It would be astonishing if he made a recommendation that impinged on the ability of journalists to report matters of public interest, however unwelcome to government and vested interests.We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle this and it can be done without impinging on press freedom. The judge's terms of reference actually require him to ensure his recommendations support press freedom, and at his hearings no voice was raised for state control of the press. It would be astonishing if he made a recommendation that impinged on the ability of journalists to report matters of public interest, however unwelcome to government and vested interests.
Our judges, appointed under statute, remain independent. Broadcast journalism, regulated under statute, is both trusted by the public and, in the case of the BBC, routinely hated by government. The National Union of Journalists believes that independent, accountable regulation will require statute. Polls show that three-quarters of the population feels the same way – because, it is plain, they believe nothing less will make a difference. If the judge recommends it, let it happen.Our judges, appointed under statute, remain independent. Broadcast journalism, regulated under statute, is both trusted by the public and, in the case of the BBC, routinely hated by government. The National Union of Journalists believes that independent, accountable regulation will require statute. Polls show that three-quarters of the population feels the same way – because, it is plain, they believe nothing less will make a difference. If the judge recommends it, let it happen.