American newspapers are none too impressed with the possibility of a statutory back-up for press regulation. Then again, they have previously scorned any form of regulation.

An editorial in the New York Times, Press freedom at risk, argued that Leveson's regulatory proposals "seem misplaced, excessive and potentially dangerous to Britain's centuries-old traditions of a press free from government regulation."

It said "a regulatory panel backed by law is a big step in the wrong direction" and continued: "To his credit, prime minister David Cameron seems opposed to proceeding in that direction. Conscientious members of all political parties should oppose it as well…

Press independence is as essential a bulwark of political liberty in Britain as it is everywhere. That independence should not, and need not, be infringed upon now."

The Wall Street Journal (prop: R Murdoch) was scathing about the proposals. Its leading article began: "Judge Leveson calls for statutory press regulation that he insists isn't statutory regulation. It goes downhill from there."

And the WSJ editorial goes downhill too: "Judge Leveson doesn't give his new board a name, but we suggest the Voluntary Independent Press Regulator, or VIPER, for short...

"Newspapers are supposed to submit to the jurisdiction of VIPER voluntarily. But in case they don't, Judge Leveson has a solution: He proposes a new law that would create a presumption of recklessness or negligence by any paper that did not sign up to his voluntary system of self-regulation by the independent board of VIPER. This would expose newspapers that did not submit to VIPER to 'exemplary' damages in any civil case against them. Judge Leveson would also make it much more difficult for non-VIPER papers to recover costs, even if they prevailed against a litigant in court. This non-voluntary voluntary self-regulation by others is surely the worst idea in Judge Leveson's tome, but not the only bad one by a long stretch."

It concluded: "The British press is in many ways the envy of the world, and its freedom is crucial to keeping Britain free. It is unruly, sometimes unreliable, and has even on occasion crossed the line into criminality.

"Not everything it publishes is admirable; some of it may be inexcusable. But that is for readers, advertisers and, when laws are broken, for the courts to judge."

(No mention that Murdoch's company owned the paper responsible for publishing most of the inexcusable material).

The New York-based press freedom watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), is also "deeply concerned" by Leveson's inquiry for making what it calls "recommendations to adopt government regulation of the press".

"A media regulatory body anchored by statute cannot be described as voluntary," said CPJ's executive director, Joel Simon. "Adopting statutory regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK and give legitimacy to governments around the world that routinely silence journalists through such controls."

Sources: CPJ/New York Times/Wall Street Journal