The coalition government has struck a deal to produce an 'independent' press regulatory system, and has called it 'voluntary', yet publishers will be subject to fines for not agreeing to it, and sent to prison for non-payment of fines, naturally making it not voluntary.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy … necessary/
Regulations would cover: "'News-related material' including current affairs news and information, opinion and 'gossip about celebrities, other public figures and other persons in the news.'" Basically everything important then.
Nobody agrees with the invasive methods of journalism that certain sections of the media took part in, but this doesn't mean the entire industry should be subject to a regulatory system. The injustices were due to laws not being enforced properly, not the lack of laws. An enforced regulatory system sets a precedent that outside bodies have the right to dictate what a newspaper can and cannot say/do. It will be there for years to come, and to be built upon by politicians influenced by special interests that wish to quash competition and dissent.
Voice your own dissent to your MP, and urge your favoured publication not to consent to the regulatory body.
Sounds like the fairness doctrine that used to control mass media, before it was abandoned and gossip and libel and slander took over the media...
The market deals adequately with publications that use unsavoury methods of journalism, as is evidenced by the rejection of mainstream televisual news and newspapers for alternative internet media over the past few years. Press regulation is wholly unnecessary and anti-freedom-of-speech.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with regulation to protect people in the public eye from salacious and harmful gossip - there is plenty wrong with a society that needs that regulation.
Having said that the proposed regulation is draconian and grossly unfair - just what we'd expect from this right wing government.
After the US, France, now Great-Britain, welcome to our democracies!
by Jeff Berndt4 years ago
So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....
by Money Man2 years ago
Why is it so bad to talk about Jews? Mel Gibson did it, and his career went down the drain. Gary Oldman defended Mel Gibson, and now we will likely see his career fade into oblivion as well. Israel is...
by Michael Collins3 years ago
Today we are seeing a movement toward tolerance or at least what we think as tolerance. Bulling has become a hot button issue in the public (as if it didn’t happen anytime before) with many different groups...
by Kenneth Dantzler10 months ago
People are saying that their amendment right are taken away, especially the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in America is definitely safeguarded by the First Amendment to the United states of America Constitution...
by Lions Den Media4 years ago
Obama has used the Espionage Act, passed under Woodrow Wilson to shut down media opposition WWI, 6 times in 3 years, whilst it had been used 3 times since 1917, to target or shut down journalists that Obama targeted. In...
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS21 months ago
Many people see the 1st Amendment today as an avenue to say “whatever they want” without regards of the feelings of others. However, according to the United States Exceptions of Free Speech: “Speeches...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.