Freedom of Press and Citizen Journalism

This is my first article so it should be no surprise that freedom of information is my top priority and indeed the well being of society as a whole. The freedom to write your opinion in England and the UK precedes the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. In 1644, amid both English civil wars which were a result of King Charles 1st "eleven years of tyranny", a man named John Milton argued against government censorship. In his writings he famously said "when as debtors and delinquents may walk abroad without a keeper, but unoffensive books must not stir forth without a visible jailer in their title." Miltons argument was that an individual is capable of using reason to distinguish right from wrong.
     In 2005 News of the World published a story on a knee injury Prince William had suffered. This prompted complaints from officials of the royal household about voicemail messages being intercepted which in turn initiated a police inquiry as to how News of the World had obtained this information. News of the World is one of many news outlets owned by the media conglomerate News Corporation chaired by a very wealthy Mr Murdoch and family.
     In 2011, it is widely known News of the World has obtained stories through devious methods, from paying police for information to hacking phones of the deceased. Unlike a small local newspaper, News Corporation has to extract massive revenue for it's stories. This is in essence what has been driving the corruption at News Corp.
     The inexcusable deviation from the code of ethics journalists adhere to has given MP's at the House of Commons the golden opportunity to clamp down on the free press.  Prior to the hacking scandal the use of gagging and injunctions has already degraded what defines the free press in "a free and open encounter". Thus endangering society's well being. The focus of the hacking inquiry has been to put the press back in a box. Many regard it as revenge and retribution, the exposing of MP's fiddling of expenses for example which caused havoc in the House of Commons and led to public outrage directed at MP's.
     There has been little focus on the relationship between News Corporation and government. Indeed we witnessed Rupert Murdoch admitting he had gone through the back door of Downing street on more than one occasion whilst Tony Blair was PM. In the run up to the Iraq war it is rumoured that Murdoch had a hotline with the PM. Flick through Mr Murdoch's Wikipedia page and you can clearly see a man who has sought political influence throughout his life in journalism. There is also the unconfirmed report that Rupert Murdoch gave his backing to Bertie Ahern former premier of the Irish Republic. It is certain that under the disgraced former premier News Corporation was able to expand rapidly in the Republic. Bertie Ahern eventually stepped down as he was facing allegations of corruption. Again nothing has been said on the relationship between News Corporation and government.
     Today MP Dominic Grieve warned the press against reporting speeches in Parliament "out of context". Those that do could face jail or fines, "writers beware" he went on to say. The actions of Murdoch and News Corporation, one individual, one organisation have had severe implications for the British free press as a whole. One form of speech that was widely restricted in 16th century England was seditious libel, laws were in place that made criticising the government a crime. Truth was not a defence to seditious libel because the goal was to prevent and punish all condemnation of the government.
    The 19th century Utilitarian John Stuart Mill states that "if we silence an opinion, we may silence the truth." The collective punishment of the British press may deter news outlets from reporting damaging articles but will in turn inspire individuals to take their place.