Impressive

I’m with Littlejohn on the matter of Max Mosley’s attack on the freedom of the press.

Plans to force newspapers to pay their opponents’ legal costs even if they win in court are ’eminently fair,’ Max Mosley insisted today.

No, it isn’t.

Culture Secretary Karen Bradley will decide whether to implement measures in Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would see newspapers who refuse to sign up to an officially-recognised regulator pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy actions brought against them.

The move has angered many newspapers, who have overwhelmingly rejected any form of state regulation, warning that it would be a threat to press freedom.

As Littlejohn points out, it is extremely unfair and can will be used maliciously by those who would wish to shut down certain publications.

Not only is this an outrageous inversion of justice, it is an open invitation to malevolents, malcontents and assorted chancers to sue the Press at no risk to themselves. Have no doubt that an avalanche of vexatious and unwarranted lawsuits will be launched immediately the clause passes into law.

 Their aim will not be so much to seek redress for any alleged stain on their reputation. It will be a blatant attempt to put some publications of which they disapprove out of business for good.

There’s a real danger that newspapers might shy away from printing potentially damaging material — even if it’s true — for fear of the financial ruin it could bring.

I frequently berate the press here because all too often they peddle lies and half-truths, however, the basic principle of press freedom – the freedom to print and be damned is too much to sacrifice.

When the News of the World published the stories about Mosley’s peccadilloes, I was firmly on his side and was happy enough to see the NOTW lose the case – for it was never in the public interest; it was typical of the curtain-twitching prurience that typified that vile paper. And someone needed to make a stand. Mosley was right to do so. However, this move that he is championing is not right. If a newspaper exposes wrongdoing and is sued for libel and wins, then they most certainly should not be liable for the other party’s costs. That is an assault on the very principle of justice. The alternative is signing up to a state-backed regulator. Oh, now, what could possibly go wrong with that?

The members of the Impress panel include a deeply unimpressive collection of embittered failed journalists, Left-wing lecturers, law professors and full-time anti-Press activists.

That alone should cause one to worry. The likes of the Mail and much of the Murdoch press will be high on the hit list. No, I don’t much like them either, but that is besides the point – freedom of speech means the freedom of anyone to speak out. And that includes newspapers we don’t much like. And be sure here, that the powers being proposed will be abused. Do you really want these leftist fascists deciding for you what you should read? Or, indeed any state backed regulator.

It would be like putting the Kray Twins in charge of the Police Complaints Commission and forcing the victims of their crimes to pick up the bill.

Indeed. This is stepping into very dangerous territory and it needs to be vigorously opposed. Max Mosley was right to sue the NOTW and its ultimate demise isn’t something I ever mourned, but this; this will be used and abused to silence dissenting voices. It is evil. Any ombudsman overseeing the press needs to be entirely independent – and that means independence from the state.