What do members think about the way in which the rich and powerful (and footballers of the left) are able to obtain super injunctions to stop the publication of true stories rather than made up ones.
I can appreciate that there could be a distinction to be made between 'needing to know' and 'wanting to know,' but should the press be able to 'publish and be dammed?'
In cases of factually incorrect stories or national security who is to decide?
My own position is that the press should be free to pretty well print anything and everything, and then be insured to take the consequences of error or malignity.
I write from the position of a no-body whose life is constantly affected and afflicted by powerful people, and who considers the press a vital element in helping to make them answerable for their actions.