Those who cite ‘freedom of the press’ invariably argue that the press shouldn’t be treated any differently from anyone else, and that the law is sufficient to punish any illegality. Even if we (far too casually) ignore the blatant fact that the law has not been sufficient, as a matter of principle, journos should be very, very careful about arguing that they should be no different in law than I am.

The practical reality is that an awful lot of investigative journalism depends on a degree of illegality – such as publishing leaked documents (like the expenses scandal), pumping police officers for confidential info, and protecting sources even in the context of legal cases. The logical position of the anti-regulation is that, as the press are no different, they should be prosecuted in a court of law, and only there can the defence of public interest be made.

If you’re in favour of ‘freedom of the press’ (as I am), then you are implicitly arguing that the press should be treated differently to me.

I agree that it should be, for reasons of the public interest. However, any body – or any industry – that is given special dispensation to break the law has to be accountable in some form, otherwise it becomes – literally and metaphorically – a law unto itself. If it rejects this accountability (especially if it does so on the grounds that it’s no different to individuals), then it rejects this special dispensation, and that each and every act of illegality justified in the name of the ‘public interest’ must be tested – not by an independent professional regulator, but in a court of law.

That would have a far more chilling effect on the freedom of the press – but it is ultimate logic of those who argue that the press is no different from anyone else, and must be regulated by the judiciary just like anyone else.