We have to speak out loud and proud if we want to save Britain’s press freedom
In order to preserve the UK's noble history of a vibrant and crusading press, we need to heed MP's plea and fight the draconian move to curb free speech
NEWSPAPERS can sometimes get things wrong.
They can print stuff that’s biased and offensive.
I should know.
As a politician, I’ve read articles about my colleagues that were unfair and sometimes cruel.
Indeed I’ve read stories about myself that should have been entered in the Booker Prize for Fiction.
So I can completely understand why many MPs want new rules on how newspapers operate.
But I strongly oppose the plans for press regulation which the Government is currently considering.
They would put power in the hands of people opposed to free speech and cripple the ability of newspapers to investigate genuine wrongdoing.
The plan would require newspapers to register with a new state watchdog or face tough consequences.
That watchdog is called Impress, funded by former F1 boss Max Mosley.
Members of the Impress team Mr Mosley has assembled are hardly supporters of popular newspapers.
Three of them support a campaign to stop advertising in The Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mail.
One board member wants the Daily Mail banned and the CEO of the organisation has shared social media posts comparing the Daily Mail to Nazi newspapers.
You don’t have to admire the Daily Mail to recognise that it played a huge part in bringing the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice.
Nazi newspapers tend not to be big on opposing racist violence.
Related Stories
The fact that the people who are trying to regulate every paper in the country have such an explicit prejudice against free reporting should automatically disbar them from overseeing what newspapers publish.
Expecting Impress to be fair when handling complaints against newspapers they want to close down is about as sensible as asking Darth Vader to protect the Jedi Council.
Which is why not a single major newspaper has agreed to be regulated by Impress.
But if Government plans go ahead, newspapers could be penalised for their refusal.
They would have to pay all the legal fees of anyone who took them to court.
Even if every word they printed was true.
So if this paper was to discover that a wealthy businessman was fantastically corrupt, it might not be able to publish anything, even with solid evidence.
The individual concerned could sue for millions, secure in the knowledge every penny of his lawyers’ bills would be paid for by the paper — whatever happened.
Any newspaper prepared to take on the powerful would know those they investigated could bankrupt them.
So instead of exposing drug cheats, sex offenders and tax avoiders, they’d be reduced to reprinting politicians’ press releases and celebrity selfies.
The truth is that if we want a vigorous press, exposing corruption and puncturing complacency, then we have to expect that some of what gets written will be uncomfortable.
Even offensive. After all, free speech isn’t really free unless someone is told something they don’t want to hear.
And the reason free speech is so important is that it is the freedom on which all others depend.
Authority can only be held accountable if it can be opposed publicly.
We enjoy the most vibrant, successful, crusading Press in the world.
Let’s not lose it by failing to say how much that freedom matters.