One sure sign of a civilised society is a free Press. It is through a free Press that the rich, the powerful — and the corrupt and criminal — are held to account.

Britain has enjoyed a free Press for more than 300 years. Even in the darkest days of war our Press has always been at liberty to criticise those in power — subject only to the law, which is the same for everyone, from the humblest parish magazine to the mighty panjandrums of the BBC.

But now all that may be about to change. In the New Year, the Culture Secretary must decide whether or not to implement a piece of legislation so pernicious, so illiberal, it is hard to believe Parliament ever passed it. But it did.

Most of our greatest injustices are exposed not by MPs or the police, but by the Press. The MPs' expenses scandal; the Rotherham sex grooming cover-up; the monumental failures over the murder of Stephen Lawrence — just a few of the investigations that would never have been possible if Section 40 was in force

Under Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, rushed into law after the Leveson Inquiry, any relevant newspapers or news websites - from MailOnline to The Guardian, Huffington Post and Buzzfeed - which refuse to join a regulator approved under the Government's Royal Charter for the Press, and are sued for libel, will be forced to pay the other side's legal costs — even if they win.

EVEN IF YOU WIN, YOU LOSE: If this law is implemented, it won't matter if an article is true, lawfully published, serves the public interest, and the complaint is thrown out by the court — any relevant newspapers or news websites not signed up to an approved regulator will face paying all the costs, every single penny.

FREE TICKET FOR CROOKS, BANKRUPTCY FOR NEWSPAPERS: Costs in High Court legal actions routinely run into hundreds of thousands of pounds — sometimes millions. This legislation gives anyone who wants to silence journalists a free ticket. News organisations that fight will face being bankrupted.

If this law is implemented it won't matter if an article is true, lawfully published, serves the public interest, and the complaint is thrown out by the court - any relevant newspapers or news website not signed up to an approved regulator will face paying all the costs

WHO WILL EXPOSE INJUSTICE? Most of our greatest injustices are exposed not by MPs or the police, but by the Press. The MPs' expenses scandal; the Rotherham sex grooming cover-up; the monumental failures over the murder of Stephen Lawrence — just a few of the investigations that would never have been possible if Section 40 was in force.

WHY NOT JOIN THE STATE-APPROVED REGULATOR? Called Impress, it claims to be independent, but is bankrolled by former F1 boss Max Mosley, on a mission to 'reform' the Press ever since a newspaper revealed his sado-masochistic orgy with five prostitutes. It has just a handful of micro-publisher members, some barely more than online blogs. No mainstream news organisation has joined.

In the New Year, the Culture Secretary (above) must decide whether or not to implement the piece of legislation so pernicious, so illiberal, it is hard to believe Parliament ever passed it

SO WHO REGULATES THE DAILY MAIL AND MAILONLINE? MailOnline and 2,600 other news websites, newspapers, and magazines do not believe the Press can be truly free under rules imposed by politicians. We belong to a regulator which is entirely independent of the Government. Chaired by former Appeal Court Judge Sir Alan Moses, the Independent Press Standards Organisation regularly orders front page corrections and — if necessary — can impose fines of up to £1 million.

... AND THEN THERE'S LEVESON TWO: The original Leveson Inquiry and associated criminal trials have already cost the taxpayer nearly £50 million. Despite a raft of reforms to the Press, police and politics, the Culture Secretary is under pressure to go over it all again with Leveson Part Two.

WHAT CAN BE DONE? Very sensibly, the Culture Secretary has launched a consultation. The zealots of Hacked Off, and their allies in Parliament, are lobbying hard for Section 40 to become law and Leveson Two to get under way.

But this time you get your say, too. If you want to defend the right to read a news website like MailOnline, a website which holds the rich and powerful to account, which fights injustice, and which refuses to kow-tow to rules set by politicians and a regulator in the pocket of Max Mosley, you can tell the Government this unjust legislation must be repealed — and no money wasted on another Leveson Inquiry.