Sorry, say that again? You're actually on myth four, I think:
"Any attempt to regulate the press means we're heading for Zimbabwe."
Which is another of these arguments like "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" that we often hear, and I simply make the point that (a) that is way too simplistic and (b) very often insincere. It's very often used by tabloid newspapers to protect their lucrative business model, which is, after all, almost no journalism now -- it's mainly the appropriation, usually through illegal means, of British citizens' fundamental rights of privacy to sell them for profit -- and that this argument that you can't in any way deal with that without us living in a state like Zimbabwe is not only absurd but it's also highly convenient for them. There are, of course, many gradations of regulation between Zimbabwe and between being the total free-for-all that we have now.