The acute anger Gerry McCann must have felt towards press intrusion following the disappearance of his daughter is unimaginable — but it is not a sound argument for state regulation of the press.
When Sir Brian Leveson proposed the establishment of a new, state-controlled press regulator thirteen years ago, the now General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, opposed it, citing the fundamental importance of freedom of speech. His position — and that of the Free Speech Union — remains unchanged.
Would tying the hands of the British press have ended the McCann family’s torment, given the intense global interest in the case? Almost certainly not.
It is entirely understandable that the McCann family felt aggrieved by having the world’s media camped outside their home. However, was press scrutiny itself so inexcusable? Over the years, there have been numerous cases in which parents reported their child missing, only for it later to emerge that they were responsible. A notable example is the French couple Anne-Sophie Faucher and Nicolas Willet, who reported their daughter missing in 2009 before confessing to her murder five months later. Of course, the McCann family is entirely innocent — but is it unreasonable for journalists to scrutinise a case of such profound public interest?
The media landscape has since been transformed by the rise of social media and artificial intelligence. Platforms such as X and Facebook are now primary news sources for millions of people. These platforms are already subject to far more stringent regulation under the draconian Online Safety Act. Ofcom now has the power to fine companies up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their annual global turnover for non-compliance. Were these regulations to be further tightened, many companies would have little choice but to geo-block the UK altogether.
We must therefore ask: how would a state regulator realistically grapple with the challenges posed by AI-driven content? The answer is that it would not. Its most likely effect would be to hobble the print media, accelerate newspaper closures, and deprive the public of access to reliable, professionally produced journalism.
Since the Free Speech Union was founded in 2020, it has defended numerous journalists, including those investigated by the police for “stirring up racial hatred” simply for interviewing controversial figures. Some have even been stopped at ports of entry under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act — an extraordinary use of counter-terrorism powers against members of the press.
Thirteen years after Sir Brian Leveson recommended a state-controlled press regulator, the case for one is weaker than ever. Europe, as many have observed — including US Vice President JD Vance — is experiencing a free speech crisis. Now is the time to strengthen protections for freedom of expression, not to hasten its erosion.
Read more from Lord Young of Acton in The Telegraph.