{"id":51760,"date":"2013-10-08T12:47:58","date_gmt":"2013-10-08T11:47:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=51760"},"modified":"2016-12-20T12:49:55","modified_gmt":"2016-12-20T12:49:55","slug":"index-censorship-calls-new-transparent-discussions-press-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=51760","title":{"rendered":"Index on Censorship calls for new transparent discussions on press regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In response to reports that the UK newspaper industry\u2019s Royal Charter proposal will be rejected tomorrow,\u00a0 Index on Censorship Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes said today:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Unconfirmed reports that the Privy Council will reject the newspaper industry\u2019s royal charter proposal should not mean that the political party proposal for a regulator will be waved through. A truly independent self regulator should not be created by politicians. Now is the time to open transparent discussions with the aim of creating genuine independent self-regulation that will ensure the protection of free speech in the UK.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Since the start of the Leveson Inquiry into UK press standards, Index has warned that there should be no political interference in determining the characteristics or establishment of a press regulator. Establishing press regulation by Royal Charter could allow politicians to meddle in press regulation and threaten media freedom in the UK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In response to reports that the UK newspaper industry\u2019s Royal Charter proposal will be rejected tomorrow,\u00a0 Index on Censorship Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes said today: Unconfirmed reports that the Privy Council will reject the newspaper industry\u2019s royal charter proposal should not mean that the political party proposal for a regulator will be waved through. A [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[366,8996],"tags":[4456,727,5356],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51760"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=51760"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51776,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51760\/revisions\/51776"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=51760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=51760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=51760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}