A coalition of national newspapers and broadcasters are to warn against possible changes to contempt laws that could see courts given new powers to order the removal of archive stories from their websites.

A Law Commission consultation paper on reforming contempt of court legislation has raised fears in the media industry that the proposals could fundamentally alter criminal reporting in the digital age.

The Media Lawyers Association (MLA), which represents newspapers and broadcasters, is expected to submit a response expressing concerns about a number of the proposals set out in the Law Commission's consultation paper.

Each of the major national newspaper groups, including the Sun publisher News International, Daily Mail owner Associated Newspapers and Guardian publisher Guardian News & Media, and broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and BSkyB are members of the MLA. Some media groups may choose to make separate submissions to the consultation before the deadline on 28 February.

The MLA is expected to meet in the coming weeks to discuss its response to the possible changes.

Crown court judges could be given the power to order newspapers and broadcasters to temporarily remove potentially prejudicial material even if it was first published years ago, according to proposals put out for consultation by the Law Commission.

If adopted this proposal would mean that newspapers could be prosecuted for contempt of court over material available on their websites but published long before a defendant was arrested or charged.

The issue is expected to come to a head in 2013. The Southwark crown court judge, Mr Justice Fulford, last year ordered the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph to take down stories about Simon Harwood, the Metropolitan police officer who was cleared of the manslaughter of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, over concerns that the material could influence jurors' decision-making in the trial.

Fulford is the presiding judge in the trial scheduled for later this year in which former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks faces charges of perverting the course of justice.

"It would be unnecessary, disproportionate and onerous to introduce courts orders which would effectively require that the local media routinely identify and remove material from their archives," said Santha Rasaiah, a director at the Newspaper Society, which represents more than 1,000 regional and local newspapers across the UK.

Rasaiah added that regulation already exists to prevent the press prejudicing criminal trials, including the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice.

David Burgess, deputy general counsel for the Independent, i and London Evening Standard, said the emphasis should be on judicial directions to the jury not to research material outside court.

"The focus should not be on court orders controlling archives. When seeking to secure a fair trial, firm and clear judicial directions to the jury not to undertake independent internet searches is the sensible approach," Burgess added.

"Only in very unusual cases should such instructions be supported or supplemented by court orders. In addition, when asserting that an archive publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced the applicant should be forced to demonstrate why judicial directions to the jury would not be effective in each individual case."

The consultation on contempt of court comes after a year in which social commentary on Twitter and Facebook has come into direct confrontation with the law. The footballers Rio Ferdinand and Joey Barton sailed close to the wind with a series of tweets around the trial of Chelsea defender John Terry, who was found not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand in July.

David Banks, the media law consultant and co-author of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, described the proposals as "unrealistic".

He said: "It's cloud cuckoo land. It's legislation in this country believing it can isolate the UK from the rest of the internet and they simply can't.

"These proposals will create a huge burden on newspapers in the UK while ignoring what's available on the internet. Powers given to judges in the UK could have no effect on sites abroad."

Banks said he believes the answer lies in educating jurors on the importance of focusing on evidence heard in court and not conducting research on the internet. He added that the advent of social networking websites, including Facebook and Twitter, made extra contempt of court restrictions on newspapers even more problematic.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediatheguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook