This thought-provoking monograph provides a systematic,
philosophically-grounded reconceptualisation of press freedom and press
regulation. In a major departure from orthodox norms, the book argues
that press freedom and coercive independent press regulation are not
mutually exclusive; that newspapers could be made to compensate their
victims, through regulation, without jeopardising their free speech
rights; that their perceived public watchdog status does not exempt
them; and, ultimately, that mandatory press regulation is not
unconstitutional. In doing so, the book questions our most deeply-held,
intuitive beliefs about the press and its role in society.
Why do we say the printed press has a duty to act as a public watchdog
when there is no legally enforceable apparatus by which to ensure it
does? Why does government constantly recommend that the press regulate
itself when history shows this model always fails? Why do victims of
press malfeasance continue to suffer needlessly?
By deconstructing the accepted view of press freedom and mandatory
regulation, this book shows that both are deeply misunderstood. The
prevailing notion that the press must serve the public is an empty relic
of Victorian ideology that is both philosophically incoherent and
legally unjustifiable. The press is obliged to make good, not do good.
