THE fight to preserve free speech in this country has won a significant victory.

It is, however, no cause for immediate celebration, because a new threat is looming.

Last week the Government announced that it would close the Leveson Inquiry and not implement Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

Neither will mean much to many people. But both had the potential to shackle newspapers, and severely limit their ability to uncover the sort of scandals that have repeatedly shamed the Establishment in this country, as well as leading figures from the worlds of sport and showbusiness.

The decision has left campaigners for Press reform seething.

They are, in large, a motley alliance of academics, disgruntled politicians and ‘celebrities’, who are shamelessly using the genuine victims of press intrusion as an excuse to advance their agenda to tame the tabloids.

Their leading light is Max Mosley, the millionaire former Formula One boss who has waged war on the popular Press since the now defunct News of the World reported a true story of his involvement in an extra-martial sex party.

The paper reported that the party had a Nazi theme, and referred to Mosley’s family links with fascism.

Mosley sued, and a judge ruled that although German military uniforms had featured, there was no evidence that there was a Nazi theme.

He was awarded libel damages, but, apparently unsatisfied with this victory, set out to reshape the Press.

His family charity provided £3.8 million to create the only state-sanctioned press regulator, IMPRESS.

But he was put in an awkward spot last week when the Daily Mail revealed that he was the alleged publisher of a racist leaflet that claimed “coloured immigration threatens your children’s health” in support of a far-right candidate in a 1961 election.

The vast majority of newspapers and magazines have not signed up to the Mosley-backed regulator because the industry says it amounts to state-sponsored regulation of the Press. It is the thin edge of the wedge to full-blown statutory regulation and is incompatible with a free society.

Newspapers, including this one, have signed up to IPSO, the sort of voluntary regulator that was recommended by Leveson.

But had Section 40 been implemented, newspapers would have been forced to sign up to the likes of IMPRESS or face having to pay the costs of complainants in libel and privacy disputes – whether they win or lose.

Now comes the devious part.

Peers who support press reform groups such as Hacked Off are trying to introduce Section 40 by the back door.

Their anti-media amendments to the Data Protection Bill are another attempt to bring in state-sanctioned regulation, again by making them pay the cost of complainants (win or lose), this time in data protection actions. As well as being disgracefully unfair, the costs would be catastrophic for the industry, and many newspapers would close.

If newspapers breach data protection laws they rightly face the consequences. In the past, journalists and editors have lost their jobs and some have gone to prison for criminal offences relating to data protection breaches. The News of the World was closed down. Publishers have paid tens of millions of pounds in damages and costs.

Newspapers take data protection issues very, very seriously.

We call upon our MPs to reject this pernicious piece of legislation resoundingly. They should, instead, turn their attention to the real issue at hand, which is ensuring that news journalism has a sustainable future in this country.