Press charter would be unconstitutional in US, says Society of Editors head.

[dipsydoodle]

The government's proposed press regulatory system backed by a royal charter "would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries", the head of the Society of Editors has warned.

Bob Satchwell, the executive director of the society, which draws its members from across the press and TV industry, said the charter had "key problems" that put press freedom at risk.

"You can't have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians," he told the BBC on Saturday.

"The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries.

"People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what's going on here at the moment with horror."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/12/press-harter-unconstitutional-regulation

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. "People in other countries ... are looking at what's going on here at the moment with horror."

That's why we need a charter. The journalists are pretending we've forgotten how much we despise them, and how much shit they've pulled over the years under their previous 'self-regulation'. The 'horror' is at what the British press does.

If we had a randomly-selected panel of members of the public draw up a charter, I bet it would be far harsher on the press than the one the politicians have come up with.

Dacre said:

"Some have argued that last week's brouhaha (surrounding Ralph Miliband) shows the need for statutory press regulation. I would argue the opposite. The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why politicians must not be allowed anywhere near press regulation," he wrote in an article published in both the Daily Mail and the Guardian.

"Febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice" is a good description of the daily content of the Mail.

[Th1onein]

2. Congress shall make no law...

...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[LeftishBrit]

3. Government should not run media, but media should not run government either

The latter possibility was never even envisaged at the timewhen the Constitution was written; but is an increasingly severe problem in many countries, including the UK certainly.

If it were truly 'free press' it would be another matter, but it is mostly in thrall to powerful moguls and corporations. Often the moguls are either not citizens of the country, or choose not to reside in it because of a reluctance to pay taxes.

[Th1onein]

5. Would you like for me to repeat the First Amendment to you, or you want to continue arguing to

overturn it?

[dipsydoodle]

6. Are you aware this refers to the UK

The USA's constitution isn't worth a light outside of the USA.

[Th1onein]

7. I wasn't aware of that. But it's a shame to make laws abridging the freedom of the press.

Wherever the press is.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Yes - I agree with you.

.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ?!