Freedom of the gutter press (2)

Before the current hackinggate crisis broke, I wrote that the problem of the 'free press' principle is that much of the press operates from the gutter. The full truth of that is now being revealed. But where to go when most of the dust has settled ?

What we are looking for here is not, I think, complex solutions, but some fundamental principles upon which we can anchor any future legislation or regulation. One such principle does come to mind. It is this :

The media shall be free to publish all information 'as long as it has been legally obtained'. This would mean that any information obtained illegally might result in both/either criminal or civil action by definition. This leads to the question, 'what is legal and illegal ?' Just for a start, 'illegal' could mean information obtained on private property (without permission of the subject) or from private communications (letters, e mails, texts, voice mail etc.). This will not eliminate difficulties, of course, but at least they could form a strong legal foundation on which we can work.

The remaining question, I suppose, is what would happen to investigative journalism, much of which may be carried on within the definition of illegality I suggest here we would have to apply the 'in the public interest' test. That will need more complx definitions and subsequent case law. It may, regrettably, mean that the onus of proving 'public interest' would fall on any person accused of obtaining information illegally, rather than the other way round.