The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

If it was -- I mean, before this Inquiry was set up, we had the superinjunction controversy and we clearly then obeyed British law, we're a British company. We don't break British law. It would be -- but American websites with whom I'm in competition obviously can ignore that. Any of them could have chosen to publish those names without any comeback whatsoever.

This is the point I'm trying to make. We operate at a competitive disadvantage in some ways, but it's a disadvantage we're happy to accept, and journalistically we can see, for instance, when it comes to libel or contempt, some of the things that are written in America about live trials as a British journalist you find very shocking. So we're happy to abide by the British law and British press regulation.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it does put us at a competitive disadvantage against not disreputable sites but very reputable publishers and it would be very difficult for us going forward if that regulatory environment was to become even stricter so that we ended up with a situation where maybe there was something that most normal people, reasonable people, would think was perfectly -- should be published yet we could not publish because of, say, an injunction, and American newspapers could publish. It's not 1936 any more, for instance. If you had a corollary of that situation where there was something that for whatever reason British newspapers weren't publishing and American publishers were publishing, as with the abdication, the British public would not be in ignorance. It would just be able to click on it and read it from an American website.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech