Farewell to the freedom of speech in the UK

Farewell to the freedom of speech in the UK


(NaturalNews) For the first time in 300 years, politicians managed to
interfere with press freedom in the UK, producing the foundations for a
new watchdog, which will essentially have the power to "decide what is
factual and what is true", reminding dangerously of the infamous
Ministry of Truth by George Orwell.

In the early hours of March
19, all three political parties of the current UK coalition government
met in order to finalize the 20-month long negotiations about the
establishment of a new media regulatory body. The plan was approved 530
to 13, while all political leaders rushed to proclaim themselves
victorious. The Prime Minister stated that he was "delighted with the
outcome". This "successful" new regime will be formalized by a royal
charter, a special document signed by the British monarch, which means
that any amendments in the future would require the support by two
thirds of the parliament. It is interesting that nobody from the
newspaper industry was present or even aware of these final talks taking
place. After the phone hacking scandal, where Rupert Murdoch's News of the World
released illegally obtained information from hacked phones of
celebrities and crime victims, the Prime Minister agreed to set up a
media watchdog in order to avoid any similar violations in the future.

While
it is noble to aim for the protection of victims in such disgraceful
cases, the definition of who is a publisher has been left suspiciously
broad in the new regime. It is unclear who will be monitored by the new
regulatory body; the official description refers to "news-related
material", meaning anything written on a newspaper, magazine, blog or
website, whose primary audience involves British people. Any potential
insult, comment or opinion that can result in a complaint, can inflict
on the publisher fines reaching the amount of one million British pounds
and front page apologies. Could this affect the nature of blogging and freedom
of speech? Who would dare to blog freely about politics, consumer
products or even athletic events, if they could receive such a
life-destroying slap?

Is it the end of free blogging?

It
is funny how the inability and reluctance of the state to effectively
stop and prosecute criminal actions that violate fundamental freedoms
can actually form the basis for the establishment of regulatory bodies
that restrict the very same freedoms they are supposed to protect even
more. If Mr Murdoch and his personnel are so much beyond the law, and we
have seen good proof of that, then is it really the lack of another
complicated bureaucratic organization that is the reason of hacking
scandals popping out so effortlessly? Apparently not.

Furthermore,
this new watchdog is not really designed to keep Murdoch and his kin at
bay. Is it a big problem for a media mogul to pay one million pounds
for damages to any victim if they violated fundamental human rights
through the publication of a misleading article? Certainly not. But
would such a fine make a difference for an amateur or even a
professional blogger that commented negatively on the toxic product of a
big pharmaceutical company or the hormone-disrupting properties of a
compound found in a popular food? The answer is too obvious to ignore.
Europe has never really been a place of freedom, but instead has had a
wide collection of monarchs and royals imposing their will on the
people, for hundreds of years. Unfortunately politicians are so willing
to hand over fundamental freedoms of the people to self-imposed
authorities that they even celebrate it as a victory.

Source:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/039580_free_speech_UK_Ministry_of_Truth.html