Dan Sabbagh has picked up on an interesting comment by Sir Christopher Meyer, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. During this week's briefing on the PCC's annual report, Meyer raised the possibility of Britain enshrining freedom of speech by imitating the American constitution's first amendment. This states, as doubtless you all know: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."
As Sabbagh notes, given that we don't have a written constitution to amend, this would be some feat to achieve. Leaving that quibble aside, Meyer is right to raise the topic because he has identified the growing concern among all editors and journalists about the way in which judges appear to be encroaching on press freedom by sneaking past us some kind of privacy law.
There have been a string of controversial rulings - notably in cases as diverse as Princess Caroline von Hannover, Naomi Campbell and Loreena McKennitt - that indicate a clamp on freedom of expression. I was particularly struck by Mr Justice Eady's decision in the McKennitt case because it transformed what could have been a libel suit into one of intrusion into privacy.
Then there are the legal clamps on the publication of material that would once have appeared without a lawyer's eyebrow being raised. The most obvious case involved a man whose identity every journalist (and many other people) know who had an affair with another man's wife. But there have been others.
Meyer points to other laws that are having a chilling effect on journalism too, such as the data protection act, the regulation of investigatory powers act and the threats outlined in coroners' bill. Then there are possible hedges to the already inadequate freedom of information act.
It's important to get this into perspective, of course. The newspapers are still able to publish all sorts of matters people would rather they didn't. But Meyer's belief that article 8 of the human rights act (which protects privacy) is enjoying greater favour from the courts than article 10 (which protects freedom of expression) is surely correct. He is calling for a rebalancing, albeit without offering a clear way of achieving such an end.
He did talk airily of the supreme court, which is likely to replace the law lords, being the appropriate body to make a definitive ruling. But that's in the future. Meanwhile, we muddle on in the grey area with a glowering Mr Justice Eady hovering in the background. It's a far from perfect situation. Then again, has it ever been?
