ARGUMENTS SURROUNDING

THE LEVESON ENQUIRYThe Royal Charter

ARGUMENTS FOR If the code meant that a Royal Charter would back any

decisions made be the PCC it would force newspapers to do as they are told, therefore giving newspapers no loop-holes to escape punishment.

It would restore the public’s faith of how newspapers are run.

Morally, a way of punishing those who publish incorrect stories, or stories that have been found using illegal methods, would create a fairer newspaper.

Newspaper are still entitled to freedom of speech and are allowed to publish stories or which they deem to be in the public’s interest. However this will all be to taking to a certain extent, which is what they general public want.

It would eliminate the chance of the police corruption giving classified information to the newspapers and therefore, ensuring that all stories are found within the law.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST There need to be a way a regulate the newspapers before

publishing in order to stop a public sandal and unjustified decisions by the public.

With the use of a Royal Charter, it would not be dissimilar to a dictatorship’s ruling. The fact that the Queen signs the document shows that a single power has control of the regulation of the Press. Instead the Royal Charter proposal should be but up to a vote, using democracy.

When giving evidence during the Enquiry, a group of disabled people offered to provide evidence but they were not present at the Enquiry. This rules out any evidence giving against by those with a disability. Furthermore, this group had been targeted by hate crime that has been published in the Daily Mail, especially on the subject of disability benefits.

The regulation wouldn’t cover what individual journalist write on their own social networking sites.