I'm not a big fan of regulation: anyone who likes freedom of the press can't be.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The freedom of the press works in such a way that there is not much freedom from it.
I'm not interested in censorship. I like the First Amendment very much.
Generally I'm against regulation.
One of the unsung freedoms that go with a free press is the freedom not to read it.
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
I don't think that there is absolute freedom of the press. We operate under laws - against libel, for instance. The idea that there is some absolute press freedom is kind of a myth.
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
If we want our regulators to do better, we have to embrace a simple idea: regulation isn't an obstacle to thriving free markets; it's a vital part of them.
In the U.K., the history of regulation, certainly regulation of the media, is one in which, time and again, successive governments lacked the 'bottle' to enforce the powers that were available to them.
No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.