As Lord Leveson readies his report on press regulation tomorrow, a host of prominent figures from the media world have insisted they would oppose the introduction of any law that would damage press freedom.
The Free Speech Network, a collection of UK publishers and other groups "who share concerns over protecting freedom of expression", has compiled a dossier of statements from journalists, politicians and other prominent figures to support the argument that at a free press remains essential to democracy in the UK.
Here are some of the strongest responses:
“State control and regulation are rarely the answer to anything. In the case of the media certainly not."
Dylan Jones, editor, GQ
"The best example of a free press is the Daily Telegraph’s outstanding exposure of the MPs’ expenses scandal. I’m sure the public would not want state regulation of the press if they thought such scandals may never be reported in a regime where politicians decide what can and can’t be reported."
Matt Bell, chairman, National Association of Press Agencies
"The press does have a lot to answer for and, if truth be told, we have brought much of this upon ourselves. If Leveson flushes out the immoral, illegal and downright despicable practices of a small section of our industry, he will have done journalism and society as a whole a great service. If he advocates a regulatory body backed by legislation and that is implemented by this Government, he and every politician who supports him will go down in history as the people who made future curbs on press freedom possible… it is society as a whole, as well as the honest, decent and responsible press vital to a functioning democracy, that will suffer.”
Simon O’Neill, group editor, Oxford Mail and The Oxford Times
“Those supporting legislation of any kind that will curb press freedom appear not to appreciate the gravity of hindering free speech and opening the door to interference from the State. George Orwell observed that “the freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticise and oppose”. It does not mean restricted freedom, with a statutory threat lurking in the background. Nick Cohen got it right in his recent You Can’t Read This Book: if just one law could be enacted in the UK it should be the adoption of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution – “the best guarantor of freedom yet written”.
Bill Hagerty, media commentator and editor
“No one here will defend phone hacking but to take away the freedom to publish would undermine everything we stand for, and to bring statutory control the whole of the press for sins for which laws already exist is totally unacceptable in a free country. In addition, how could we legislate to control the printed press without similarly controlling the internet and thousands of magazines and leaflets etc? Could UK law really say we can stop you saying something on newsprint but we can’t stop you saying it on the internet? We need to think hard about this. A Daily Telegraph leader last week was headed ‘The threat to our free press is grave and foolish.’ It is, in fact, the worst threat I have known in my 65 years of active service in newspapers.”
Sir Ray Tindle, chairman, Tindle Newspapers
"Papers such as the M.E.N. exist to scrutinise those in positions of power. It could not fulfill that role if those it was scrutinising had any authority over it, however limited.”
Rob Irvine, editor, Manchester Evening News
“…the Fourth Estate – the media – has an almost sacred role in holding governments to account. A free and independent press has always been the keystone of an open society. That’s why I’m issuing a call to arms to the media the world over to hold the feet of government officials and ministers like me to the fire.”
Government minister Francis Maude
Read more on the Free Speech Network.