- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
Press liberties should not be curtailed as a result of phone hacking
Press liberties should not be curtailed as a result of phone hacking
One of the main concerns of the Leveson inquiry is whether there needs to be more regulation of the press after the failures of the current system in the UK at preventing phone hacking which was going on for years. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has warned the Leveson Inquiry that the case for regulation of the press would need to be very strong "before we further curtail liberty". Gove argued for the press’ freedom of speech saying “By definition, freedom of speech doesn't mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time”. Gove believes that the case for the liberties of the press needs to be restated when considering any regulation as a counterbalance.
Phone hacking has indeed made regulation of the press much more likely and in their evidence to the inquiry most of the industry’s editors and owners argued for as light a touch as possible when it comes to regulation. This is necessary to ensure that the press can maintain its role as a check on the power of government.
Debatabase debate: This House would regulate the press http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/culture/house-would-regulate-press
50 weeks 6 days ago
While Gove is right to warn against regulation going too far that does not mean that there does not need to be more reguilation. The current press complaints commission is an industry body that is run by the press itself. While it may theoretically be independent I think the press is too important to be allowed to self regulate in such a way. It is also frankly a little too toothless. The sanctions it says it can apply are:
Sanctions
The PCC can enforce a range of sanctions, summarised below:
- negotiation of an agreed remedy (apology, published correction, amendment of records, removal of article);
- publication of a critical adjudication, which may be followed by public criticism of a title by the Chairman of the PCC;
- a letter of admonishment from the Chairman to the editor;
- follow-up from the PCC to ensure that changes are made to avoid repeat errors and to establish what steps (which may include disciplinary action, where appropriate) have been taken against those responsible for serious breaches of the Code;
- formal referral of an editor to their publisher for action.
I bet that really keeps the editors and proprietors up at night worrying!
50 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
What the press did in the phone hacking case was wrong. It shows that the press is not moral and so should not be allowed to regulate itself. Self regulation can only be allowed if those who are self-regulating are considered trustable.
No one in the UK will trust the press any more so the public wont trust self regulation. The press has therefore lost the right to self regulate.
50 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Gove does have a point, the regulator's failings obviously have something to do with the phone hacking scandal but lets face it the probelm was not with regulation, it was a breach of the law and thus the failures rest primarily with the police.