This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/europe/british-lawmakers-join-fierce-debate-on-press-controls.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
British Lawmakers Join Fierce Debate on Press Controls British Lawmakers Warn Against Press Restrictions
(about 7 hours later)
On the eve of a major report into Britain’s phone hacking scandal that editors and reporters fear could lead to statutory regulation of the press, a group of more than 80 British lawmakers on Wednesday opened a defense of press freedom, which, they said, would be undermined by new laws enforcing controls on newspapers. LONDON — On the eve of a major report on Britain’s phone hacking scandal that editors and journalists fear could lead to statutory regulation of the press, a group of more than 80 British lawmakers on Wednesday opened a defense of press freedom, which, they said, would be undermined by new laws enforcing controls on newspapers.
“As parliamentarians, we believe in free speech and are opposed to the imposition of any form of statutory control even if it is dressed up as underpinning,” the multiparty group of 86 legislators from both houses of Parliament said in a letter published in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. “As parliamentarians, we believe in free speech and are opposed to the imposition of any form of statutory control even if it is dressed up as underpinning,” the group of 86 legislators, who were from the three main parties and both houses of Parliament, said in a letter published in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.
The letter appeared hours before Prime Minister David Cameron received his personal copy of the report, based on months of hearings conducted by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, into widespread phone hacking, primarily by Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper subsidiary. The document is to be made public on Thursday, and is likely to stoke a furious debate within the divided political elite about the future of press controls, which are currently based on loose self-regulation that many lawmakers maintain has been ineffective, reinforced by some of the West’s toughest libel laws. The letter appeared the same day a van pulled up at 10 Downing Street with Prime Minister David Cameron’s personal copy of the lengthy report, which has emerged from nine months of hearings conducted by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson after the hacking scandal that focused primarily on Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper subsidiary.
The argument cuts across party lines, as did the letter from lawmakers on Wednesday, signed by a majority of Mr. Cameron’s Conservatives but also including figures from the Liberal Democrat junior coalition partner and from the opposition Labour Party. It followed an earlier statement by 42 Conservative lawmakers urging the drafting of new laws to control newspapers. The document, to be made public on Thursday, is likely to stoke furious debate within the divided political elite about the future of press controls. These are currently based on a loose, voluntary system of self-regulation administered by the newspaper industry through a body known as the Press Complaints Commission, which many lawmakers and a cross section of newspaper editors believe has for years been woefully ineffective.
“This government set up Leveson because of unacceptable practices in parts of the media and because of a failed regulatory system,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament on Wednesday, referring to the Leveson inquiry. His remarks seemed intended to balance the many arguments likely to be set off by the report — between the government and the opposition, within the coalition government itself and with advocacy groups pressing for much tighter statutory control. But the furor that swept the country in the wake of the hacking scandal, and revelations of other criminal wrongdoing in newspaper newsrooms, particularly by mass-circulation tabloids, has fostered what some of the harshest critics of the industry have described as a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to rein in the newspapers and end a culture of rambunctious, no-holds-barred journalism that has had few equals in the world.
“I think we should try and work across party lines on this issue,” Mr. Cameron said. “It is right to meet with other party leaders about this issue, and I will do so. What matters most, I believe, is that we end up with an independent regulatory system that can deliver and in which the public have confidence.” These critics have argued for statutory regulation, hoping that public disgust with tabloid excesses has created political momentum that Mr. Cameron and other political leaders will be reluctant to withstand. Advocates of such a statutory remedy have widespread political support, including from dozens of lawmakers in Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party.
In their letter on Wednesday, the lawmakers said no form of statutory regulation of the press would be possible without the imposition of state licensing, which  was abolished in Britain in 1695. “State licensing is inimical to any idea of press freedom and would radically alter the balance of our unwritten constitution,” it said. One sign of pressure came this month when Mr. Cameron received a delegation from Hacked Off, a group that includes some of the most highly publicized victims of the tabloid hacking, among them Hugh Grant, the actor, and the parents of Milly Dowler, a teenage murder victim whose phone messages were intercepted by the Murdoch-owned News of the World before her body was discovered.
“There are also serious concerns that statutory regulation of the print media may shift the balance to the digital platforms, which, as recent events have shown through the fiasco of ‘Newsnight’-Twitter, would further undermine the position of properly moderated and edited print journalism,” the letter said. In response, the newspaper industry has come up with its own recommendations for a tighter system of self-regulation that would not require new laws. One proposal, which has won broad support, has come from two peers who have been pillars of the existing complaints commission: Lord David Hunt and Lord Guy Black.
It was referring to a separate matter, in which the BBC’s flagship “Newsnight” current affairs program wrongly implicated a former Conservative politician in sexual abuse and his identity was then widely hinted at in Twitter feeds. The BBC scandal unfolded separately from the months of hearings at the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the British press. They have proposed a new complaints body, financed by the newspaper industry, with much broader powers, including an expanded staff capable of conducting thorough investigations, and the power to levy mandatory fines of up to $1.6 million against offending newspapers.
“The press abuse chronicled at Leveson was almost wholly about actions which were against the law,” the lawmakers said. “It demonstrated not a sole failure of regulation but rather of law enforcement. However, the status quo is not an option. We cannot countenance newspapers behaving as some have in the past. The solution is not new laws but a profound restructuring of the self-regulatory system.” “At the moment, it is like the Wild West out there. We need to appoint a sheriff,” Lord Hunt said when outlining the proposals.
Opposition to statutory controls has come from some of the country’s most prominent politicians, including Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, who is widely viewed as a potential successor to Mr. Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party.
“M.P.s, don’t you for a minute think about regulating the press in this country, which has been free for 300 years,” Mr. Johnson told an audience in London last week. He added, in defense of the tabloids, “To rinse the gutters of public life you need a gutter press.’ ”
In their letter, lawmakers opposing statutory controls said that no form of “statutory regulation of the press would be possible without the imposition of state licensing — abolished in Britain in 1695.”
“State licensing is inimical to any idea of press freedom,” the letter said, “and would radically alter the balance of our unwritten constitution.”
Mr. Cameron, whose cabinet is divided over the issue, trod warily in the House of Commons on Wednesday, avoiding anything that committed him to one side or the other of the issue, or hinting at what the Leveson report will recommend. But he emphasized that change was essential.
“Whatever the changes we make, we want a robust and free press in our country,” he said. “One of the key things that the Leveson inquiry is trying to get to the bottom of is how you can have a strong, independent regulatory system so you don’t have to wait for the wheels of the criminal justice system or the libel system to work.”
He added, “People should be able to rely on a good regulatory system as well to get the sort of redress they want, whether that is prominent apologies or fines for newspapers or the other things that are clearly so necessary.”