The value of free expression is integral to the history and laws of this country. It was encapsulated famously by John Milton in Areopagitica, in 1644: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” The censorship he deplored takes new forms in every age. It is hence welcome that the government, in proposals for an updated bill of rights, is seeking to strengthen protections for free speech.
Under existing legislation, rights of privacy have progressively encroached upon the public’s right to know. A contribution to the government’s consultation by several newspaper publishing groups, including the publisher of The Times and Sunday Times, urges that the balance be redressed.
The courts have increasingly emphasised individual rights, notably on privacy and data protection. This has had the perverse effect of curbing the media’s ability to report on matters of public interest. The problem is exemplified in the ability of wealthy Russian nationals, some close to the Putin regime, to hamper the media in publishing stories about their opaque financial interests.
It takes doggedness to investigate such dealings, and to face down legal threats. New legislation ought to tilt the balance back towards free expression. Hence the newspapers’ submission advocates compelling the courts to give appropriate weight to the rights of free expression, and exempting news publishers from the requirements of data protection legislation. Laws giving individuals the right to control their own data were never intended to confer upon the rich and powerful the ability to evade public scrutiny.
A free society comprises a myriad of informal social contracts. A free press is fallible but it performs an essential role in serving and informing the public. Parliament should give it the legal protection it needs to do that job.