Steven Barnett and others (John Whittingdale and questions of press freedom, Letters, 16 April) argued that, far from threatening investigative journalism, Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act offered “unprecedented protection”.
Section 40 would mean that newspapers could face paying both their own costs and the costs of a plaintiff even if they successfully defended a libel action. That would mean newspapers paying twice to inform the public. First, to cover the costs of collecting and publishing the facts and, second, to prove the truth of a story to the satisfaction of a court.
If the clause is implemented, the only way to avoid that would be for newspapers to sign up to the royal charter system that has been rejected by all significant parts of the press including national, regional and local newspapers and magazines. Paying the loser’s costs would ride roughshod over the principle of everyone being equal under the law. How would that protect press freedom and the public’s right to know the truth?
If the press is to be truly free it should be free with neither carrot nor stick, to join or not join the royal charter system, join or not join the new Independent Press Standards Organisation or not to join any system at all – as the Guardian so chooses.
Bob Satchwell
Executive director, Society of Editors
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
