Don't know if the link has already been posted, or if anyone's interested, but I'll leave it here just in case. Over 100.000 sigs so far.
Don't know if the link has already been posted, or if anyone's interested, but I'll leave it here just in case. Over 100.000 sigs so far.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Just signed it Yellow Rose thanks for the link
You're welcome Rosie I signed too. Uppermost in my mind are families like the McCanns and Millie Dowler's family. The loss of a child is surely the most painful of all, what they don't need are the Press becoming too intrusive at such a grieving time, and spreading salacious and cruel gossip.
Same here Yellow Rose, well said.
Didn't Ian Hislop say that... followed by saying the problem was the police and the politicians were in the pockets of the media which had hindered that happening. If you root out the corruption and the cosy relationships then maybe Joe. As things stand, it doesn't work like that in real life.
We have to be very cautious about this, it makes me very nervous to stifle a free press.
Much as it pains me to say it, but I agree with call me dave on this one.
the laws are already there to punish crap editors and journalists, we just need to use them.
could it be that seeing and understanding what the victims of some of the press went through, there is an element of wanting them punished in this? regulation of the press should not ever be used as punishment, it's a dangeropus path, i reckon
Isn't it just a legal underpinning to serve as a last line of defence should self regulation not work though? The press have been given chances over years to clean their act up but didn't so whats left.
Isn't it just a legal underpinning to serve as a last line of defence should self regulation not work though? The press have been given chances over years to clean their act up but didn't so whats left.
not much really, they'll behave themselves for maybe a decade and then it will all hit the fan again, but rather that than legislation , for me
^^^ this.
We have to be very cautious about this, it makes me very nervous to stifle a free press.
I'm with you Squiggle ..............some of the stuff that came up at the enquiry was beyond shocking but ........stifling the press is maybe a step too far (I think).
I'm curious about what the overall meaning of "freedom of the Press" means. Apart from D notices issued to them that prevents them printing anything about matters that are related to national security does it mean they have carte blanche to print anything about anyone or anything. whether there's any truth, facts or evidence or not to prove it? I agree there are things in some areas of life that we all have a right to know that some would prefer we didn't. But when it comes to ordinary families like the McCanns or Dowlers - as an example - who are suddenly thrust into the limelight through personal tragic circumstances - and have the Press constantly hounding them, camping on their doorstep, and putting cash through their letterboxes for an interview, spreading cruel slander and they don't have Agents protecting them, or enough money to go to Court to get an injunction that's where I personally disagree with absolute freedom of the the Press.
Signed
signatures so far
They need some kinda manners put on them.
I'm curious about what the overall meaning of "freedom of the Press" means. Apart from D notices issued to them that prevents them printing anything about matters that are related to national security does it mean they have carte blanche to print anything about anyone or anything. whether there's any truth, facts or evidence or not to prove it? I agree there are things in some areas of life that we all have a right to know that some would prefer we didn't. But when it comes to ordinary families like the McCanns or Dowlers - as an example - who are suddenly thrust into the limelight through personal tragic circumstances - and have the Press constantly hounding them, camping on their doorstep, and putting cash through their letterboxes for an interview, spreading cruel slander and they don't have Agents protecting them, or enough money to go to Court to get an injunction that's where I personally disagree with absolute freedom of the the Press.
we all know that behaviour like this is repugnant to the majority of the public, and i think the press or those rogue elements of it, should be punished, but it's also true that the press create these stories because they know it sells papers, so all of us who read the crap articles need to take a very close look at themselves too.as has been already said, we already have laws that could be used to bring rogue editors and journalists to court,we should be looking more closely at why they aren't implemented.
any regulation of the press is a step too far, we do actually need the press to be able to report freely .
This is how i feel about it, hacking into someones phone is already against the law..... so why do we need a new one?
Access to this requires a premium membership.
Upgrade to VIP premium membership for just $25/year to unlock these benefits:
Ad-Free | Search Site | Start Dialogs |
Upload Photos | Upload Videos | Upload Audio |
Upload Documents | Use Signature | Block Members |
View Member Directory | Mark All Topics As Read | Edit Posts Anytime |
Post To Walls |