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 edmondpogi6 years ago
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
by LoliHey15 months ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from...
by Diana Grant4 years ago
Should extremists be gagged, or should freedom of speech be allowed?When an English soldier was murdered in the streets of Woolwich, London, on 22nd May 2013, video film on various news stations, including but not...
by irachx7 months ago
Do we really have freedom of speech?
by RealityTalk4 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles...
by Money Man3 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...
Copyright © 2018 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.