Ahoy! anniebach, and other Corbyn fans (cough)!

I await you to explain how a Twitter account is connected to a newspaper ,

Twitter accounts are irrelevant. Of course newspapers have Twitter accounts. So do many journalists. So does the activist group Hacked Off, which is the group behind the push for government regulation of the press.

Nobody is against press regulation per se. Nobody thinks journalists and new media should be above the law. They aren't so that isn't the issue. The issue is that the press should be independent of government, i.e. free within the law to publish what they want to publish, including, should they deem it necessary, stuff about the government that the government would rather we didn't know.

What's interesting is that newspapers as diverse as The Times and the Sun all oppose government regulation of the press.
This is an up to date article on the issue from the Press Gazette.

The reason I mentioned the Twitter account was that was how I traced the individuals behind your link, which doesn't give any source.

I am aware that there has been controversy about press regulation since Leveson and the formation of Hacked Off. I also know that some newspapers object. Incidentally, the Times and the Sun are hardly diverse, as they are owned by the same person. News International was forced to pay out large sums to people such as Christopher Jefferies, so of course they object.

It's quite interesting that John Whittingdale is quoted, because pressure was almost certainly used to close down reporting on his own Miss Whiplash story and reporting about his half-brother, a convicted paedophile. 'Ordinary people' don't have that kind of leverage and can't afford to take papers to court. Some posters seem to think that if a paper breaks the law then the 'law' will automatically kick in and prosecute. Of course it doesn't. People need to be able to risk £thousands to take these kind of cases to court and that's what Section 40 is trying to make easier.

I don't believe in unlimited free speech. The right to have a voice comes with responsibilities and I think the media oversteps the mark, which is even more difficult to monitor in the age of the internet. What we're now seeing are 'false news' stories and deliberate hounding of innocent people for sensationalist news headlines.

The people funding the link you posted are self-declared libertarians in a Tea Party/Trump sense. More sinister, however, is the obvious involvement of alt right groups. There is controversy on university campuses at the moment, because certain far right publications have been banned by student unions. They are print copies of publications such as the Daily Bale. The founders are all a bit secretive, but it's widely accepted that the Daily Bale's founder is someone called Joshua Bonehill-Baine. He's currently serving a prison sentence for various crimes, including being behind the anti-semitic hate messages sent to various Jewish MPs, including Luciana Berger. He's published the names of all Jewish MPs and suitable hate messages which could be sent to them. The group has made up all sorts of stories, some of which have found themselves into the msm. The law is very weak on libel and, personally, I think it needs strengthening.

As far as criticism of government and other authorities is concerned, Section 40 strengthens the media's hand, because it limits the payouts. Some argue that it actually empowers them to be more critical. Reading through the msm, there is certainly no shortage of criticism, so they don't seem to have too much to worry about. I'm more concerned about 'ordinary' people and those from minority groups, whom the press harrasses with impunity. Unless some action is taken, we'll end up with a democracy which means the 'tyranny of the majority'.

Thank you Daphne

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/16/not-post-truth-simpler-words-lies-aleppo-trump-mainstream?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=204563&subid=11289830&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Jonathan Freedland on post-truth and the importance of not telling untruths.
When the media are ever present in our lives through television, radio, social media as well as print newspapers, they should not be 'free' to publish what they like with impunity.

I agree completely that media should not be able to publish anything they like with impunity if what they publish is against the law (lies and libel, for instance).

That is not, was not, and never will be a point I was making.

The problem, as I understand it, is that the press regulator proposed by Leveson is a government funded organisation. That and only that is the problem as I see it. I do not think government should be directly involved in regulating the press. In countries where this happens, lies are told with impunity and truth is hidden.

PS Daily Mail and Katie Hopkins, who told lies about the Mahmood brothers, have published an apology today and I understand they have had to pay fines and legal costs. Clearly the paper and she did not get away with publishing untruths with impunity.

Self-regulation hasn't worked though, has it?

Crossed posts.

On the separate issue of people saying what they think when what they think is clearly wrong-headed, if they don't express their wrong-headedness it can't be challenged.

I suspect that Donald Trump has probably said nothing publicly that I could agree with but I think the campaign to ban him from coming to the UK recently was wrong. Similarly, no-platforming controversial speakers at universities and schools is not aomething I would support. Stupid ideas are killed by good ideas, not by banning.

I think there have been some bad cases where self-regulation has goven the press a bad name but I'm not convinced that it doesn't usually work.

I think the last paragraph of Freedland's article gives away his tendency in it to exaggerate on the issue of untruths and awful media. I seem to remember having read better articles by him so I'm not saying I think he is generally a bad writer.

I so agree bags

Digressing slightly, but still on the subject of Camilla Long, she came up with this in The Sunday Times at the week-end. Government of Utterly No Talents or quite simply GUNTS. Donald Trump's assembled cabinet thus far. One should pay careful attention when typing the acronym making a typo in the wrong place wrong place would be in the words of Craig Revill Horwood "a disaster dahling!"

Would you allow radical imams to speak in schools?

Anticipating how bad a potential wrong letter could be, I see I have inadvertently typed "wrong place" twice. Ah well could have been worse !

DD I wouldn't allow radical anything to speak in schools.

But it seems it's OK for them to be shown by the BBC on news programmes spouting their hate.

There is little time in the news for anyone to say very much

My preference with regard to religious leaders and schools is that the twain never should meet. It's for parents and religious houses (I said churches first but thought it might not be felt inclusive enough) to do the religious preaching and schools simply to inform. You don't need religious leaders to give kids the basics of any religion: the dates of festivals and the stories associated with those, the names of holy books, and who the gods and prophets are is quite enough for schools to be spending time on.

I think there's a case for protecting kids from extremism where there isn't a case where adults are concerned.