Press hits back over 'chilling' media crackdown as campaigners warn Internet sites face 'threat to free speech'



Press watchdog to cover websites even if not connected to newspaper

Foreign sites targeting UK audiences could face huge damages for abuses

Lawyers say bloggers could also be affected but Government says no

Full details on how internet is affected 'still to be confirmed', MPs say

Turmoil as Press signals it will not sign up to new regulatory scheme

Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber attacks plan as 'unsatisfactory'



Hacked Off campaigners were present at talks but newspapers were not



Compromise: David Cameron told MPs the deal has protected the principle of a free Press from statutory regulation

A Press backlash against the Government's plan for a media watchdog underpinned in law intensified today as it emerged that the internet will be targeted for the first time.



The draft version of the document suggests that foreign-based or owned websites such as Twitter, Huffington Post, Facebook, Holy Moly, the Guido Fawkes political site and even The New York Times will be subject to the stifling controls if their articles are aimed at 'an audience in the UK'.

But as confusion mounted about exactly who would be covered, the government said it would leave it entirely up to the new regulator to decide whether major foreign sites should be made to sign up.



There was also a growing backlash from the Press with Financial Editor Lionel Barber attacking the plans as a 'horse traders' ball'.

The Spectator also formally rejected the scheme, releasing a front pages that said 'No', and The Daily Telegraph's deputy editor called for a breakaway regulator to be launched.



But the greatest confusion surrounded rules governing the internet. The government claimed that 'small bloggers' would not be caught in the plan - but admitted this was still not decided.



Lawyers say large foreign organisations could, like newspapers, be pursued for 'exemplary' damages of up to £1million in defamation and other cases if they failed to abide by its rules - even if they have their business or servers in other countries like America and Ireland.

Even if they won a libel case in the High Court they could also be blocked from claiming back any legal costs under the proposed rules, meaning these huge financial penalties could be an incentive for them to sign up.

The document says: 'The new rules would cover newspapers, magazines and websites containing "news-related material", even if the websites are not connected to a printed paper or journal.



The Royal Charter also states that it will cover 'news-related material' including current affairs news and information, opinion and 'gossip about celebrities, other public figures and other persons in the news'.

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson, left, today released a front cover, right, formally refusing to sign up to the deal

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson reveals he will be formally rejecting the regulatory scheme Kirsty Hughes, the chief executive of Index on Censorship said: 'This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on everyday people's web use,' she said.

'Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages, due to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not intended for them in the first place.' Meanwhile there were clear indications that the many members of Press may not sign up to the scheme. Spectator editor Fraser Nelson tweeted a picture this week's front page and said he would be facing huge fines rather than sign up to the deal.

Financial Times editor Lionel Barber described the way the plan was agreed in late-night talks between the political parties and Hacked Off as a 'horse traders' ball' and said his newspaper had yet to decide whether it would sign up to the new arrangements. 'This has not been a satisfactory process. We have not decided at the Financial Times whether we are going to join up with the new regulator. We will be looking at the practical implications and, above all, what has been completely lost in this process, the cost,' he told BBC Radio 4's The World At One. 'I am worried about the practical costs of, for example, allowing free access to arbitration, I am worried about claims-farming, vexatious complaints from readers and others who will tie us up in knots. This is a real problem.'

Abroad: Websites like Huffington Post, who are owned by a U.S. company would be subject to the new controls

In range: The popular Guido Fawkes blog would also be subject to the Charter, even though they have their servers in Ireland, experts say

HACKED OFF REFUSES TO REVEAL ITS RICH DONORS

Pressure group Hacked Off is refusing to reveal who is bankrolling their campaigns despite wanting more transparency in the press. They refused to comment on claims that rich benefactors keen on greater media regulation were covering the costs of the group, which is supported by celebrities including Hugh Grant. Blogger Guido Fawkes claims that donors include various peers, hairdresser John Frieda and BBC star Jeremy Clarkson, who is alleged to have made a £1,000 payment to Hacked Off. But Mr Clarkson denied this on this Twitter yesterday. After pressure from campaigners all political parties must declare donations of more than £5,000, but Hacked Off appears unwilling to do the same. The group has supported the parents of Milly Dowler and Madeleine McCann from press intrusion.

The Telegraph's Benedict Brogan wrote: 'The biggest newspaper groups put their heads together and agreed to think about it, but you don't need to be Mystic Meg to work out that the drift is towards rejection. For my part – and this is a personal view – I've concluded that we should note the outcome, thank the politicians for their engagement, and quietly but firmly decline to take part'.

On the issue of internet governance, lawyers have said the wording is unclear and very wide-ranging.



Niri Shan, Head of Media Law at Taylor Wessing, said: 'The wording of the Royal Charter is unclear and if I was Facebook or Twitter or Google I would be concerned about the lack of clarity.

‘If they have a website and it includes news then it could capture them. I don't think the intention is to target bloggers, but currently it would.'

Mr Shan, one of the UK's top libel lawyers, said that media organisations based abroad have rarely ignored British libel judgements as damages would only be secured against their assets in the UK, like an office.

'If they did not have a British base they would still probably agree to pay damages and apologise because of the reputational damage it would cause them', he told MailOnline.

This is despite American businesses being able to use the First Amendment - the right to free speech - as a defence. It also is despite U.S. courts will not enforce a UK libel judgment.

It is understood that the same principle will apply, with UK courts left to decide if they have jurisdiction over the website and publication being sued.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: 'The fact that in the proposed regulation all things and all people are covered, is very disturbing.



'That is your blog, your forum, your twitter feed, your Facebook page, in fact almost the whole of contemporary discourse. The only place left to speak out will be in the pub… and they are closing at 10 a week due to a series of ill thought out government measures'.



Carla Buzasi, the editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, which is run by U.S.-based company AOL, told the BBC: 'I can't imagine any politician has had this discussion because they have rushed this through so quickly.



'It does worry me to a certain extent. Someone said this is a carrot and stick approach. There doesn't seem to be too much of a carrot here,' she added.

Guidelines: The charter appears to say that anyone with a website who aims stories at a UK audience, like Holy Moly for example, should be 'nervous', experts say

However, despite the language in the draft Charter, there remained political confusion last night as Downing Street said the regulatory regime was not aimed at bloggers, and giants like Facebook and Twitter.

Adding to this lack of clarity, during an interview on Newsnight last night, Tory part co-chairman Grant Shapps said this was still not confirmed.

Asked by Jeremy Paxman about the inclusion of bloggers in the Charter he said: 'You’ll have to wait until the details are published next week. A little bit of patience and we’ll know the answer.'

The online editions of national and regional newspapers, such as the Guardian, Times, Mail and Sun, and the Dorset Echo, Somerset Standard and Yorkshire Post, would certainly be covered.

Online-only edited ‘press-like’ content providers, such as the Huffington Post and lifestyle magazines including Heat, Closer and Marie Claire would also be included.

Examples of those who would not fall under the potential remit of the new watchdog would be high profile Tweeters such as Stephen Fry, small publishers of special interest, hobby and trade titles, such as Waitrose magazine, Decanter, Retail Week, and not for profit community newspapers, such as Varsity, Leeds Student, parish magazines, scientific journals and periodicals like the British Medical Journal and the Modern Language Review.



Broadcasters’ websites, including the BBC and Sky News, would not be included even though they are not regulated by the broadcast regulator, Ofcom. '



Scroll down for video







The Prime Minister, pictured leaving Number 10 ahead of his statement, hailed the deal which would secure upfront apologies and million-pound fines

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said there were three interlocking tests aimed at protecting ' small scale bloggers'. The tests are:

Whether the publication is publishing in the course of business

Whether it publishes news related material written by a range of authors

Whether it is subject to editorial control

A spokesman said: 'Ultimately, it is a matter for the court to decide on the definition of a relevant publisher based on assessment of the facts, in accordance with the three interlocking tests.

'But if material isn't subject to editorial control shouldn't be caught.'

The spokesman added that the new system was aimed at tackling the 'British Press' and not the wider internet.

'It would be up to the self-regulator to devise their own rules. If they said "we will only accept publications that are based in the UK" that would be OK.

'In the Royal Charter and the exemplary damages that have been tabled there is nothing in there that says "this is only limited to UK publications". However there is nothing in there which says this should apply to overseas bodies.

'The regulator could choose to do that.'

But hinting at the almost-impossible task of a UK body policing everything on online, the spokesman added: 'If we have got a regulator that decides it wants to do everyone, it will be a really big job.

David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg yesterday unveiled a cross-party agreement on Press regulation after ‘shambolic’ all-night talks – only to see the deal immediately opposed by senior Tories and challenged by key elements of the newspaper industry.

There was wider concern on the Tory benches at the chaotic nature of the discussions at which the deal was brokered.

Actor Hugh Grant lead the Hacked Off campaign for tougher press regulation

All three party leaders tried to claim victory after 20 months of wrangling in the wake of the phone hacking scandal ended in an agreement by the Prime Minister to set up a media watchdog.

It would have the power to require front-page apologies and issue £1million fines, under a Royal Charter.

The campaign group Hacked Off, which represents celebrities and other victims of Press intrusion and had four representatives at cross-party talks, warmly welcomed the deal.

By contrast, there was no-one present at the early hours negotiations from the newspaper industry – which was not informed the talks were taking place.

And last night there were doubts over whether major newspaper publishers would agree to recognise the new watchdog, while some Tory MPs warned it constituted a serious threat to three centuries of Press freedom.

Four newspaper groups, the Daily Mail Group, News International, Northern and Shell, publishers of the Express, and the Telegraph Media Group, as well as the Newspaper Society and the Professional Publishers Association, said they had not been consulted over the final package and there were ‘deeply contentious issues’ to consider.

The Newspaper Society represents 1,100 regional papers.

London Mayor Boris Johnson, a former journalist, telephoned Mr Cameron yesterday and expressed ‘serious concern’ about a proposal to hit publishers who refuse to sign up to the new watchdog with ‘exemplary’ damages in libel cases.



‘The thing that is really exercising Boris is the idea that if we don’t join the club then you get whacked with massive fines,’ an ally said.

Former Tory Cabinet minister Peter Lilley went further, telling MPs the new regulator would act as an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ and urging media organisations to follow the example of The Spectator magazine, which has indicated it will refuse to recognise the body.

Mr Cameron pulled the plug on cross-party talks on Thursday, claiming Labour had produced fresh demands, apparently prepared in close co-operation with Hacked Off.

But over the weekend, facing a Commons defeat as Labour and the Lib Dems threatened to join forces, the Prime Minister reopened discussions with Mr Clegg.



His chief negotiator, Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, was then dispatched to talks in Labour leader Ed Miliband’s office in the Commons on Sunday night.



Deal done: Culture Secretary Maria Miller claimed to have averted Labour's 'extreme version' of press law, but Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman claimed it was a deal which victims of phone hacking could be 'pleased' with

Four representatives of Hacked Off, which has campaigned for a draconian crackdown on media excesses, were present. A deal was finally reached at 2.30am yesterday.

Downing Street denied that Mr Cameron had been asleep, insisting he had been in touch with Mr Letwin regularly throughout the night, with their last contact at 3.20am.

Tory MPs expressed private amazement that the Government had allowed talks to take place in Mr Miliband’s office, or with Hacked Off present – but no-one from the media industry.

Deal: Miliband, Clegg and Cameron launched a new round of late-night negotiations on the issue

In the Commons later the Prime Minister said a Press law had been avoided – although he conceded there were ‘two very important but relatively small legislative changes’ needed.

They include a clause allowing more punitive libel damages to be awarded against publishers who refuse to recognise the watchdog. A separate clause was passed last night to ensure that the Royal Charter for the Press cannot be amended unless two-thirds of MPs and peers and all three main party leaders agree.

Mr Cameron made a number of concessions to secure the deal, dropping an effective veto for the industry over the regulator’s membership and agreeing that the regulator should have the power to ‘direct’ newspapers on the prominence of apologies and corrections.

