This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/31/why-i-reject-press-regulation-through-a-royal-charter

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why I reject press regulation through the royal charter Why I reject press regulation through the royal charter
(about 3 hours later)
My blog posting last week, Press freedom danger if MPs vote in section 40 by the back door, was damned by members and supporters of Hacked Off.My blog posting last week, Press freedom danger if MPs vote in section 40 by the back door, was damned by members and supporters of Hacked Off.
Brian Cathcart called it humbug. Steven Barnett described it as a fundamental misreading of the situation. Tim Fenton accused me of selling the pass. There were Twitter nods of agreement from Evan Harris and Máire Davies, among several others.Brian Cathcart called it humbug. Steven Barnett described it as a fundamental misreading of the situation. Tim Fenton accused me of selling the pass. There were Twitter nods of agreement from Evan Harris and Máire Davies, among several others.
It was tough to be accused of siding with the media establishment after 24 years of doing the opposite. During that time I have supported many, many “ordinary people who have been lied about and intruded upon by national newspapers”.It was tough to be accused of siding with the media establishment after 24 years of doing the opposite. During that time I have supported many, many “ordinary people who have been lied about and intruded upon by national newspapers”.
But that doesn’t mean that I have to accept Hacked Off’s remedy - a form of press regulation established by a royal charter - as the best cure.But that doesn’t mean that I have to accept Hacked Off’s remedy - a form of press regulation established by a royal charter - as the best cure.
I concede that I initially thought the charter was a clever way to underpin regulation (although I was disappointed at the clumsy way it came about). I changed my mind when I realised the implicationsI concede that I initially thought the charter was a clever way to underpin regulation (although I was disappointed at the clumsy way it came about). I changed my mind when I realised the implications
Why I oppose the royal charterWhy I oppose the royal charter
I know Hacked Off which represents victims of press misbehaviour, sincerely thinks it has found the best possible way to stop abuses by newspapers while maintaining press freedom. I know Hacked Off, which represents victims of press misbehaviour, sincerely thinks it has found the best possible way to stop abuses by newspapers while maintaining press freedom.
In so doing, its ideologues have placed their faith in the political establishment. They believe the charter is safe in the hands of MPs and peers and that the conditions that might lead to it being altered are highly unlikely.In so doing, its ideologues have placed their faith in the political establishment. They believe the charter is safe in the hands of MPs and peers and that the conditions that might lead to it being altered are highly unlikely.
But my lack of respect for what they call the media establishment (which, incidentally, is itself a mythical construct) is nothing like as great as my lack of respect for the so-called political establishment.But my lack of respect for what they call the media establishment (which, incidentally, is itself a mythical construct) is nothing like as great as my lack of respect for the so-called political establishment.
Given an opportunity during one those not infrequent febrile clashes between parliament and the press, politicians could conceivably vary the terms of the charter. Even if this sounds far-fetched, because of the numbers necessary to briit about, it is possible. So why take the risk? Given an opportunity during one those not infrequent febrile clashes between parliament and the press, politicians could conceivably vary the terms of the charter. Even if this sounds far-fetched, because of the numbers necessary to bring it about, it is possible. So why take the risk?
Does the BBC feel safe from political interference because it has a royal charter? Parliamentary control of the corporation’s budget has had the effect of reducing editorial staff and thereby reducing news coverage.Does the BBC feel safe from political interference because it has a royal charter? Parliamentary control of the corporation’s budget has had the effect of reducing editorial staff and thereby reducing news coverage.
And while I’m on that point, did anyone notice how the BBC failed to cover the Guardian’s story about the Theresa May/Goldman Sachs tapes? Was that a caution born of its concern about not rocking the government boat?And while I’m on that point, did anyone notice how the BBC failed to cover the Guardian’s story about the Theresa May/Goldman Sachs tapes? Was that a caution born of its concern about not rocking the government boat?
Why I oppose the charter’s compulsionWhy I oppose the charter’s compulsion
Under the charter, a press regulator must secure official recognition by satisfying 29 conditions. They are not unduly onerous. One of them, which I welcome, is the creation of a low-cost arbitration arm.Under the charter, a press regulator must secure official recognition by satisfying 29 conditions. They are not unduly onerous. One of them, which I welcome, is the creation of a low-cost arbitration arm.
This has two benefits: it would allow people without the necessary funds to sue newspapers to have their legal complaints heard; it would be cheaper also for well-heeled complainants (and, of course, newspaper publishers).This has two benefits: it would allow people without the necessary funds to sue newspapers to have their legal complaints heard; it would be cheaper also for well-heeled complainants (and, of course, newspaper publishers).
But here is the rub. Any publisher not regulated by an approved regulator - even if it were to set up an arbitration service - would find itself subject to a provision of the courts and crime act 2013, known as section 40.But here is the rub. Any publisher not regulated by an approved regulator - even if it were to set up an arbitration service - would find itself subject to a provision of the courts and crime act 2013, known as section 40.
This would compel publishers to pay the legal costs, win or lose, for both itself and the complainant.This would compel publishers to pay the legal costs, win or lose, for both itself and the complainant.
Can anyone be surprised that publishers are up in arms at that possibility? The government, having realised the implications after intense lobbing by publishers, has yet to trigger section 40, but it’s on the statute book and could be introduced at any time.Can anyone be surprised that publishers are up in arms at that possibility? The government, having realised the implications after intense lobbing by publishers, has yet to trigger section 40, but it’s on the statute book and could be introduced at any time.
Whether you see this as a carrot to lure publishers into an approved regulator or a stick to compel them to do so, it is a form of blackmail and, by extension, inimical to freedom of expression.Whether you see this as a carrot to lure publishers into an approved regulator or a stick to compel them to do so, it is a form of blackmail and, by extension, inimical to freedom of expression.
Why? Because it is conceivable that a publisher outside the system, such as the Guardian or Private Eye, could face crippling legal costs.Why? Because it is conceivable that a publisher outside the system, such as the Guardian or Private Eye, could face crippling legal costs.
You may feel unsympathetic towards wealthy publishers - although they are thinner on the ground, and certainly less profitable, than was once the case - but the iniquity of them funding litigants is obvious.You may feel unsympathetic towards wealthy publishers - although they are thinner on the ground, and certainly less profitable, than was once the case - but the iniquity of them funding litigants is obvious.
Section 40 - an imagined injusticeSection 40 - an imagined injustice
Most of my critics have taken issue with my imagining a scenario in which section 40 opens the door to injustice.Most of my critics have taken issue with my imagining a scenario in which section 40 opens the door to injustice.
I argued that people could sue over, say, a case of phone-hacking and reverse the burden of proof by requiring a newspaper to prove a negative (ie, that it hadn’t done so).I argued that people could sue over, say, a case of phone-hacking and reverse the burden of proof by requiring a newspaper to prove a negative (ie, that it hadn’t done so).
Such a claim, it was suggested, would be thrown out by a judge because people would have to produce concrete evidence.Such a claim, it was suggested, would be thrown out by a judge because people would have to produce concrete evidence.
I am not so sure, having watched certain lawyers over the years play fast and loose with defamation claims (and also privacy claims). While we’re on the subject of establishments, let no-one underestimate the legal establishment’s capability to use a bad law to its fullest extent... and beyond.I am not so sure, having watched certain lawyers over the years play fast and loose with defamation claims (and also privacy claims). While we’re on the subject of establishments, let no-one underestimate the legal establishment’s capability to use a bad law to its fullest extent... and beyond.
Not being sure is the problem here. We are facing the possibility of a calamity, and all because, back in those frenetic post-Leveson report days, there was a failure to agree a proper settlement that would have drawn both sides, victims and villains, together.Not being sure is the problem here. We are facing the possibility of a calamity, and all because, back in those frenetic post-Leveson report days, there was a failure to agree a proper settlement that would have drawn both sides, victims and villains, together.
I’m with you, Brian, Steven, Tim, Evan and Máire on the need to ensure our press behaves itself, but not at the cost of allowing an arcane instrument of state to threaten press freedom.I’m with you, Brian, Steven, Tim, Evan and Máire on the need to ensure our press behaves itself, but not at the cost of allowing an arcane instrument of state to threaten press freedom.