He said there was a danger it would produce a 'cure that is worse than the original disease' Gove asks for freedom of Press to be defended from judges and celebs <\/p>\n
By Jason Groves <\/p>\n
Last updated at 9:08 AM on 22nd February 2012 <\/p>\n
The Leveson inquiry into Press standards has created a \u2018chilling atmosphere\u2019 that threatens free speech in Britain, Michael Gove warned yesterday. <\/p>\n
In an outspoken defence of the Press, the Education Secretary cautioned against allowing \u2018judges, celebrities and the establishment\u2019 to set the boundaries of free speech because they had a vested interest in shackling the media. <\/p>\n
Mr Gove, one of David Cameron\u2019s closest allies, also appeared to question the Prime Minister\u2019s decision to set up the inquiry last year, warning there was a danger it would produce \u2018a cure that is worse than the original disease\u2019. <\/p>\n
The Leveson inquiry into Press standards has created a 'chilling atmosphere' which threatens free speech in Britain, Michael Gove warned <\/p>\n
Addressing a Westminster lunch, Mr Gove acknowledged the need to investigate alleged wrongdoing at the News of the World. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But he said there were already laws to prevent reporters \u2018going rogue\u2019, including specific offences of intercepting voicemail messages and bribing public officials. <\/p>\n
Gove warned there were 'dangers' in the wide-ranging inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson <\/p>\n
Mr Gove, a former senior journalist at The Times, said there was a natural temptation for politicians to \u2018succumb\u2019 to demands for an inquiry by \u2018establishment\u2019 figures in the wake of a major scandal. <\/p>\n
But he warned there were \u2018dangers\u2019 in the wide-ranging inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson. <\/p>\n
He said: \u2018There is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities, and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over from the Press as arbiters of what a free Press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation. <\/p>\n
\u2018What we should be encouraging is the maximum amount of freedom of expression and the maximum amount of freedom of speech.\u2019 <\/p>\n
He added: \u2018Journalists should be more assertive in making the case for Press freedom, and politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering a Press which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standard of debate in this country is higher than in other jurisdictions. <\/p>\n
\u2018The big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson. <\/p>\n
GOVE: A MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS THE MEDIA <\/p>\n
Michael Gove was born in 1967 in Edinburgh and was educated at Robert Gordon\u2019s College, Aberdeen and then Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University. <\/p>\n
He has been a journalist since he left university, working for local and national newspapers, radio and TV. <\/p>\n
His career began as a trainee reporter for The Press and Journal in Aberdeen. <\/p>\n
He joined The Times in 1996 as a leader writer. He also held the position of comment editor, news editor, Saturday editor and assistant editor. <\/p>\n
Mr Gove has also worked for the BBC's Today programme, On The Record, Scottish Television, and was a regular panelist on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze and has appeared on Newsnight Review on BBC 2. <\/p>\n
In addition he is also a published author and has written books including a biography of Michael Portillo. <\/p>\n
He was first elected as an MP for Surrey Heath in May 2005. Following the 2010 General Election he was appointed Secretary of State for Education. <\/p>\n
He is married to Sarah, a journalist at The Times. <\/p>\n
'I think that there are laws already in place that we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold that are central to ensuring that this country remains free.\u2019 <\/p>\n
Mr Gove said previous inquiries into national scandals had produced reports that \u2018give birth to quangos, commissions, and law-making creatures that actually generate over-regulation, over-prescription, and sometimes a cure that is worse than the original disease\u2019. <\/p>\n
He said the Food Standards Agency, which was born out of the BSE crisis, had gone from being a \u2018body that was responsible for governing the safety of our food to one that became yet another meddlesome and nanny organisation that was telling us what we should eat and in what proportion\u2019. <\/p>\n
And he said 800 pages of guidance produced in the wake of the deaths of Victoria Climbie and Baby P was \u2018impenetrable and has still not ensured that our children are safer today than they were two, three or five years ago\u2019. <\/p>\n
He acknowledged that he had sometimes been \u2018irritated\u2019 by Press coverage of his own conduct, but insisted that the media had a key role to play in holding politicians to account. <\/p>\n
Sources close to the Education Secretary last night said he supported the decision to set up the inquiry but was concerned about the direction it had taken. <\/p>\n
Downing Street said the Prime Minister stood by his decision to order the inquiry, but insisted he valued the role played by the media. <\/p>\n
His official spokesman said: \u2018He has made very clear on a number of occasions since how important he thinks it is that we have a free Press and free media that is able to challenge governments and others.\u2019 <\/p>\n
GOVE'S SPEECH: 'A CHILLING ATMOSPHERE TOWARDS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION' <\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the things that struck me over the past few months is that a new set of stereotypes every bit as misleading and caricatured as those about politicians, have grown up around journalists and about the media and the way in which it operates. I am thinking in particular about the Leveson inquiry and the debate that has surrounded it. <\/p>\n
\u201cOne the things that struck me about politics is that there is a particular tendency to which all politicians are tempted to succumb. In the aftermath of a specific crisis, when an undoubted wrong has been done, there is a desire to find a judge, a civil servant, a representative of the great and the good, inevitably a figure from the establishment, to inquire into what went wrong, and to make recommendations about what might be put right. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt is a natural thing for politicians to do, but there are dangers associated with it. Sometimes the recommendations of that report may be modest, proportionate and sane. But sometimes they give birth to quangos, commissions, and law-making creatures that actually generate over-regulation, over\u2014prescription, and sometimes a cure that is worse than the original disease. <\/p>\n
\u201cIf we look back at government\u2019s response to various crises in the past, there have been some profound crises that have affected all of our consciences. And because they have affected our consciences, people have wanted to be seen to act. So for example in the immediate aftermath of BSE and the problems associated with the quality of our food, the Food Standards Agency wa
\ns quite rightly set up, <\/p>\n
\u201cBut one of the problems is that the Food Standards Agency morphed over time from being a body that was responsible for governing the safety of our food to one that became yet another meddlesome and nanny organisation that was telling us what we should eat and in what proportion. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe same thing applied to the vetting and barring scheme and also to the Every Child Matters agenda in the wake of the tragic deaths of Victoria Climbie and subsequently Baby Peter. In both cases the tragic death of two children led to an attempt to ensure that we more effectively policed those that worked with young people but the result of that was a situation where Phillip Pullman had to apply for a Criminal Records Bureau check in order to go into a school to read to children. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn the same way we developed guidance which is 800 pages long, is impenetrable and has still not ensured that our children are safer today than they were two, three or five years ago. <\/p>\n
\u201cI see the same dangers in the Leveson inquiry and in the way in which the debate on press regulation are moving now. It is undoubtedly the case that there were serious crimes which were committed, but we know those crimes were serious because they broke, if the allegations are proven, the already existing criminal law. There are laws against the interception of messages, there are laws against bribery, there are laws that prevent journalists like any other professional, going rogue. Those laws should be vigorously upheld, vigorously policed. However, there is a danger at the moment that what we may see are judges, celebrities, and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation. What we should be encouraging is the maximum amount of freedom of expression and the maximum amount of freedom of speech. <\/p>\n
\"The reason why I say there is a particular danger at the moment is that because we all know that newspapers are under threat, under threat from the pressure of advertising migrating online, under threat from a variety of new news sources, that is why whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper, as Rupert Murdoch has done with the Sun on Sunday, they should be applauded and not criticised, and that is why journalists should be more assertive in making the case for press freedom, and politicians should recognise that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from fettering a press which has helped keep us honest in the past and ensured that the standard of debate in this country is higher than in other jurisdictions.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cThe big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson. I think that there are laws already in place that we should respect and principles already in place that we should uphold that are central to ensuring that this country remains free.\u201d <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
See the original post: He said there was a danger it would produce a 'cure that is worse than the original disease' Gove asks for freedom of Press to be defended from judges and celebs By Jason Groves Last updated at 9:08 AM on 22nd February 2012 The Leveson inquiry into Press standards has created a \u2018chilling atmosphere\u2019 that threatens free speech in Britain, Michael Gove warned yesterday. Continue reading
\nMichael Gove: Leveson Inquiry has created 'chilling atmosphere that threatens free speech'<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"