Yes.

To be honest, you're just getting my view now.

I think in the most general terms, it seems to me that the incentive structure has to be changed so that -- at the moment, as John said, one of the problems is that there are serious, serious profit-making incentives for the press which act against what it seems to me ...

Of course, of course. But insofar as the question is how do we effect a culture change, it could be that part of the answer to that question is by changes in the law. The decriminalisation of homosexuality served, over the medium to long-term, to change the culture. If you ...

Yes.

And the law itself is a very powerful means of changing culture, or can be. Has been in the past.

Okay, that's the sort of Benthamite world where everything is exposed to the public gaze and nobody can want that. I suppose my compromise, in a way, perhaps, is to go for three, but to say: well, surely guidelines, codes of ethics, changes to the regulatory system, these are ...

It may never.

Well, I agree that ideally the law is a backstop, but I suppose one reason you're here is because it's not an ideal world and the backstop hasn't really been as effective as it might.

I feel less clear about that. I'd like to introduce something that we haven't specifically alluded to here, and that is the importance of freedom of speech/freedom of expression in a society such as ours, which is multicultural and where many faiths are adhered to. So -- there ...

Yes.

As grey.

If I understand you, then I think that that's right and I take it that it's part of what was -- what Jen was saying earlier about the difference between somebody in a private context, the individual who makes a -- I don't know, a racist remark or a ...

Yes.

Absolutely, and it becomes more difficult also, of course, if one wants to codify that, because that doesn't allow a great deal of room for judgment and nuance and all this kind -- that is very, very problematic.

So the moral philosopher stays within the realm of the individual in ...

It does, absolutely.

Crucially what's underlying all of this is the very clear and simple claim that rights don't exhaust the realm of the morally good and bad, or, as one of my colleagues used to say, there are rights but the good man doesn't always stand on his rights ...

Personally I agree. I don't think it's sufficient, but I think people who do earn a lot of money and are in the public view have to recognise that that is a danger. I don't think it's legitimate. I very much agree. I don't think ...

I used to think that personal immorality mattered a lot, and now I think it doesn't matter so much, or that it's dangerous to let it matter, and the reasons have been alluded to already.

It depends in some part, I think, how much we believe a person ...

I would agree with that. I have nothing to add. That seems right.

And presumably in that case it reflects on one's own character, so to speak, but it has very little wider -- I mean, it tells me that certain people aren't the kind of people I'd like to have dinner with, but it has very little wider influence, whereas ...

It seems to me that I don't mind in this context whether we use the word "duties" or the word "responsibilities", but it seems that the duties or responsibilities of the press follow straightforwardly from the reasons that we have for wanting a free press. So if one of ...

The question of impact I think is also -- the case you mention is not simply a matter of a wider audience and impact but also of the sort of esteem in which certain people are held. So if Fred in the pub makes a comment, nobody will notice, but nobody ...

I think it is a useful analysis. It goes back to the question: why do we think it important to have a free press? We think it important to have a free press because a free press will, in many contexts, be our, the people's, bulwark against tyranny. The ...

Quite a lot of the right types of people will feel that if the price is that the medical records of their small children are to be displayed across the whole country, that's too high a price.

I have nothing against entertainment, but I think we need to think quite carefully here because -- about the sort of entertainment we're considering, because -- and it's a second danger, it seems to me, in thinking about press freedom -- where the press provide, on a daily basis and in ...

Okay. That's where I think difficulty where confusion arise or can arise quite dramatically: the move from the free press to the free market. These are quite different things, so we need to think what's the value of the free press, why is it important to have a ...

Okay, this is the question. I always tell students they mustn't do that. I always say you must answer the question, not the question you wish you'd been asked.

Yes, absolutely, and I think there are a number of things to say there. One is that in doing that they need perhaps to think about the extent to which they report upon the news and the extent to which they make it.

I hesitated, and that's the reason, but -- I don't have the argument now, but I put it to you that questions about the euro, about Afghanistan are more important and more deserving of space in newspapers than questions about who cleaned the duck house and for what sum ...

I wonder if it's worth noting that part of -- one of the consequences of the megaphone effect is to take up a limited amount of space and time with a certain sort of view or position. To give an example, it seems to me that the more time that ...

Yes, I would agree with that entirely, and I think if we don't hold onto that distinction, then there is very serious danger of endorsing in two areas different items which ought to be treated differently. I think that is very, very important distinction.

I don't know if this is what Jennifer was referring to, but my thought is my free speech is just the speech to say what I think to the world. I just announce my -- I'm not really interested, necessarily, in whether anybody's listening. But if you're ...

Could I comment on that? I wouldn't myself phrase the debate quite so clearly in terms of rights and duties. That's just a personal preference. That's not the way I personally would approach it, but I guess we're here, to some extent, to try to understand ...

I certainly agree with that. It's very often said that the importance of free speech for individuals is, as has been said, for the development of autonomy, so that people shall be in a position to act in a way which they themselves believe to be correct and they ...

My main area of interest is modern political philosophy and I have specialised, over the past 25 years or so, in concepts of toleration.