Should we allow our Politicians to control the "Freedom of our Press" ?

Grumpy this is a good question that has underlying consequences.

If the Government of the day does nothing then it is open to the charge of being called inept.

Then if the government of the day legislate and bring in controls then it open to being labelled dictatorial by denying freedom of speech/journalism.

Yet the excesses which bought this to the front cannot go without some control as we cannot allow instances where Millie Dowler's phone was allegedly tapped which gave her parents false hope that she was still alive.

Freedom of the written word carries responsibilities and it is a fine line between good investigatory journalism where criminal activities of the wicked and powerful are publicised and the intrusion into the lives of the innocent being invaded.

The editors and owners of the newspapers cannot be relied on to show restraint as sensationalism sells newspapers and the other side of the coin politicians keep the ordinary guy in the dark about their greed and excesses.So what can be done?

Denying the press freedom of the written word as you and I know sex and sensationalism sells newspapers and politicians legislating brings a nasty taste in my mouth.

Another example that springs to mind is this. Every law abiding citizen in the United Kingdom expects of right to go and transact their lawful business in safety,without injury and intrusion into their civil liberties.

Now two Americans who in another age would have been identified as traitors to their country revealed information/ secrets that would aid and encourage terrorist and foreign state hostile actions in both military,commercial and/or cause injury by explosion,and weaponry to the law abiding individual.

Now should a newspaper in the name of free speech and unfettered journalism print information that would aid hostile terrorist groups and enemy foreign powers who have one intention and that is to destroy the society we take for granted?

As I said in my opening gambit. This is a question,a very good soul searching question that has no easy answer.

We either have a free press or we do not. Meddling politicians are the last thing we need. The press is quite able to manage things for itself.

We've had a free press here in England for 300 years. Now we have an angry village of politicians who want absolute control over the press by stealth. First one new Royal Press Charter thing, then, as time passes new squeezes on the freedom of the press until it is nothing more than a government mouthpiece spouting crap, crap and double crap.

Let me just put it like this. I am a Socialist Methodist - I do not always vote Labour and I've been reading that scurrilous Cavalier rag the Daily Mail since the age of 14 (b1941) but only for a damn good belly laugh. It prints the most total nonsense a lot of the time, but it is entirely free to do so and that should never be changed in any way.

If you watch this video you'll find out about a press warrior, a man prepared to go to prison for published what he believed. There is even a statue to him here in London - every single politician should be made to bow before this statue on the birthday of the man himself.

John Wilkes MP

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3...

The statue of John Wilkes MP is in Fetter Lane just of Fleet Street here in London

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFGTtcEDBrg

A free press is just the beginning and taking that freedom away is a disgrace. I know there are many who support the idea of controlling the press. But what next? Complete control over the lives of the people too? You lose one bit of freedom and before we know it they will start taking other bits away, just like Adolf Hitler, until there is nothing left but Big Brother.

George Orwell - a final warning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm5hklbBsA

"The only thing you can believe in the newspapers is the advertising."

Benjamin Franklin FRS - Newspaper publisher, kite flyer and bifocalist.

London UK 131013.1814

No this is tantamount to censorship. If it wasn't for the Press we wouldn't have a clue what these so called politicians are up to. The public should also be fighting this tooth and nail. This country is getting more like a Police State everyday with what these so called elected representatives are doing. There are Laws in place for anybody who objects to what the Press prints. They are spying on everything we do and if they control the Press then god help us.

Well, let's just say that govt 'control of press' suits the nanny state nicely does it not? Tell them what the govt wants them to know. The need to know. Keep them in the dark and feed on shxx.

Many newspapers aren't fit to wipe care home residents bottoms on, but at least people have a CHOICE right now. A choice to buy, a choice to believe (or not) much of the garbage that the free press write about. Take that freedom of choice away though, and we are on the road to big brother again. Back to Internet bloggs written by extremists or the misinformed. Back to 'rumour control'.

I favour the industry regulating itself to a great extent, but with perhaps one govt representative on a monthly meeting panel, that would act in an 'advisory' capacity only.... a facilitating role, unpaid, no expenses and completely neutral of any political party or self interests. We need Jesus on the panel, if he's out there... JESUS, where are you? We know not what we do.......

We have been faced with an unenviable choice for a democracy -- allow "press freedom" and accept that they will abuse that freedom , or give the state more power to control them and accept the risk that the state will abuse that power .

For decades the press were allowed their freedom -- and they regularly abused it . They were given countless opportunities to clean up their act and behave responsibly -- but they didn't ; and they wouldn't .

Not surprisingly , we have pushed the balance between state power and press freedom the other way --and will simply have to see whether that works any better.

I'm not sure which is worse - the press being controlled by elected scumbags like Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage; or being controlled by unelected scumbags like Murdoch, Dacre and Desmond.

At least we can get rid of the politicians when we get fed up of their lies!

I agree with nlv, the law should be enough to keep the press in order; I do believe they should be forced to clearly label what is news and what is opinion, and the courts should have the right to suspend them from publishing if they persistently publish things they know to be untrue.

Firstly, a Commission, Parliamentary Commission, etc, would not amount to control by individual politicians any more than is the case with the Police Complaints Commission, Advertising Standards Authority etc.

Then, the millionaires' sewer press has demonstrated itself to be incapable of acting with a shred of propriety or decency, so regulation by a properly appointed and constituted commission is quite clearly absolutely necessary.

And finally, it would be best by far simply to sequester the assets of vermin such as Northcliffe and Murdoch, close down their filth sheets and reopen new titles in the hands of new teams of responsible and professional workers' co-operatives.

It's not 'our' press: it's the press of the millionaires who own it and control what it says. Most newspapers are propaganda sheets that put forward the views of various factions of the ruling class. The press is 'free' to print anything its owners agree with.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I make no apology for shouting this out. It is a disgrace that they should be even contemplating this. Politicians are the people most likely to be caught by investigative journalism hence their personal reasons to become involved. The existing law of the land is sufficient.

The press should have no restrictions, there are plenty of current laws to deal with any illegal activity.