"Arbitrary Censorship” Of British Press Criticised

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29842, 7 June 1962, Page 18

"Arbitrary Censorship” Of British Press Criticised

r N Z.P.A .-Reuter—Copyright)

LONDON, June 5 The British newspaper magnate. Mr Ceeil Harmsworth King, said yesterday that the British press was as censored as most censored presses "though in an arbitrary and indeterminate way.” Mr King, chairman of the “Daily Mirror”-“Sunday Pictorial” group, told a “Sunday Pictorial” shareholders’ meeting that claims about the freedom of the British press compared with other lands were "completely unfounded." He listed four reasons why the British press was censored. but said the most serious of them was the operation of British libel laws. Charles Dickens would not be able to write today “be-, cause some of the characters could be recognised and were displayed in an unfavourable light.” Mr King said. “As a young man he would have been buried under libel actions and he and his printer been ruined.

”... Personally. I thank this drastic curtailment of the liberty of cur press is against the public interest This country is too smug, comolacent and sluggish, and pointed criticism might do much to get us moving again." Mr King said the thnee other factors which censored the British press were the operation of contempt of court laws, the Official Secrets Act, and "d" notices issued by the Defence Department.

The operation of the contempt of court laws meant that “of recent years no seri-

ous eritcism of judicial proceedings above the level of magistrates' court* has been thought possible." he said. "In fact, there has been little or no such critici*m. though a good deal, from time to time, would have been in the public intere-t " Mr King said the Official Secrets Act was “now used quite cynically to protect the reputations of Ministers, and. above all. of civil servants. As the communication of any official document to an unauthori«ed person is a serious offence. any accusation against a Government servant usually lacks documentary baei«.“

Mr King said the “d? notices warned editor* or news the Government did not wish to be published for security reasons. “Some of these matters are entirely petty or so general as to be of no possible value to a foreign power. . . Military equipment and policies, ooenly written ab ut on the Continent, are frequently kept hidden from the British public.’’ said Mr King