InPublishing: Boris supports Free Speech Network

As reported by the Newspaper Society: In the video, he says that London’s strengths are due to “the stability that goes, not just with the rule of law, but with a system of government that’s almost entirely free from the corruption or criminal activity at virtually every level. And that is very largely thanks to the free, dynamic, irreverent, independent media that we have. And that is one of the glories of this country and we’ve got to fight to keep it that way.”

The Free Speech Network hosted a panel discussion last night, on the constitutional threat posed to free speech by statutory regulation of the press, led by John Humphrys, with panellists John Whittingdale, Mick Hume and Tim Luckhurst. The event saw the official launch of ‘Responsibility without Power’, a pamphlet by Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, with two accompanying papers: ‘Unconstitutional. Undemocratic. And Unworkable.’ and ‘Tough. Independent. And Free.’

The 32-page pamphlet, which examines ‘Lord Justice Leveson’s constitutional dilemma’, opens with Sir Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny… Under dictatorship the press is bound to languish, and the loudspeaker and the film to become more important. But where free institutions and indigenous to the soil and men have the habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.”

It examines the role of newspapers in Britain’s national culture, the phone hacking scandal which has engulfed the industry and the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry last year.

“Journalism has been vilified and careers and reputations in the press, politics and the police swept away by a wave of opprobrium. And the scandal has spawned a growing list of criminal charges. Small wonder then that appreciation of the service newspapers provide has been undermined and a consensus has emerged in favour of reforming press regulation.”

The newspaper industry, national and regional, remained committed to the ideal of self-regulation. “And hostility to state involvement in the conduct of newspapers extends into the broadcasting industry too. Mark Thompson, the outgoing director general of the BBC – which in common with all British broadcasters is subject to a regulatory code backed by statute – is not persuaded that similar strictures should be applied to newspapers: ‘Plurality of regulation is itself an important safeguard of media freedom,’ he explains.‘It is not obvious to me that newspapers that people can choose to buy or ignore – and which, should they break the law, can always be prosecuted after the fact – should be held to the same level of continuous supervision and accountability as broadcasters who reach out into every household in the land.’ ”

Professor Luckhurst cites a number of major public interest stories broken by newspapers which the broadcast media could and would not have unearthed. “Mark Thompson acknowledges that: ‘[The BBC] would never have paid for the stolen information that helped the Daily Telegraph to uncover the MPs’ expenses scandal.’ ” Other examples included the Guardian’s revelation that Jonathan Aitken had lied in court; the News of the World’s investigation into cricket match fixing; The Sunday Times’ identification of a senior IRA commander and arms smuggler; and the Daily Mail’s naming of those it considered guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence.

“This matters immensely because many supporters of statutory regulation argue that public interest journalism would not be damaged in any way by imposing on popular newspapers an equivalent of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code’s rules for public service broadcasting. But it would be damaged. Imposing such a straitjacket would prevent or delay rule-breaking in the public interest. It would neuter the capacity of popular newspapers to do what they do best, namely to pursue their readers’ interests passionately and sometimes aggressively within the law…”

In his conclusion, Professor Luckhurst says: “The Leveson Inquiry’s meticulous work has made stark one conclusion that is profoundly inconvenient to proponents of stricter regulation underpinned by statute. The lawyer Richard Shillito expresses it well: ‘All or virtually all the egregious behaviour which has given rise to calls for better press regulation is either actionable or contrary to the criminal law. Breach of privacy, copyright, confidence, harassment, data theft, forgery, hacking of computers and phones, contempt of court/Parliament – these are all covered by existing law.’ ”

He notes that “Regulation underpinned by statute might satisfy a short-term appetite to avenge the suffering of innocent victims. It might please the few misguided MPs who still imagine that the press was wrong to shine light into the murky world of parliamentary expenses. But no matter how benignly intended or carefully designed, it would have consequences infinitely worse that any good it could do.”

Professor Luckhurst quotes from a leader in The Times, on the day its editor James Harding gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry: “‘If any future regulator is run, overseen empowered or appointed by government, then politicians will loom over the press…. And even a rewriting of the regulatory system recognised by an Act of Parliament has its dangers: A Leveson Act would give Westminster a mechanism for legal control over the press. If MPs decide they do not like the press they are getting, they could easily amend the Act. It gives politicians a foot in the door.’ ”

The pamphlet concludes: “Were the superb work The Guardian did to expose phone hacking to result in state-supervised regulation of British newspapers, the injustice would be grotesque... An officially regulated press is the glib, easy, dangerous solution. It would spell the slow, painful death of a raucous, audacious and impertinent press able to speak truth to power on behalf of its readers and entertaining enough to secure their loyalty. A few individuals who already have our collective sympathy and who have received or will receive richly deserved compensation might enjoy the spectacle. We would all be the losers.”

Free Speech Network Supporters

• Advertising Association

• Commonwealth Press Union Media Trust

• The Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka

• European Magazine Media Association

• European Newspaper Publishers Association

• European Publishers Council

• Foreign Press Association

• GQ magazine

• London Press Club

• News Media Coalition

• Newspaper Society