The point here is not to say that the press should remain all but unregulated, it is to highlight how the decision to regulate links to a more fundamental issue of the origin of legitimate power in our society.
The Leveson Report tries to deal head on with the current problems with the press as it sees them. However, on this occasion, I would give full marks ...
This week I've found myself at odds with a number of friends and colleagues on the subject of press regulation, with the majority of my lefty acquaintances being in favour of Lord Justice Leveson's plan for an "independent regulator" underpinned by statute.
In the hypothetical future (somewhere in the distance on the other side of the rubicon and down the slippery slope) the stronger argument is surely that we would like to already have on our statute book a law that asserts the press's right to independence and free speech.
So, the Leveson Report is out, and very helpfully, is available online, free. I've read the fifty page , and that is probably enough for me.
We need far more than the Leveson Report is ever likely to give us: ownership caps to break up giant concentrations of media power, a call for unionisation to protect the rights of journalists, and more democratic forms of governance to take control away from all-conquering proprietors.
We don't have a free press in this country. What we have is a press controlled by a tiny clutch of plutocrats, whose political influence lay at the root of the culture of criminality and impunity that had pervaded a large section of the industry prior to the phone hacking scandal breaking at the beginning of 2011.
On Thursday David Cameron achieved what Blair did with Iraq and Thatcher with the miner's strike: take the difficult, unpopular, but Prime Ministerial route. And if justice is done, he too will be rewarded.
Given that leaking was one of the main reasons for an inquiry into press standards, how surprising it was to discover that despite its nature, none of Lord Justice Leveson's 2000 page report was leaked to the media before its publication.
Power has neurological effects on the brain which can include a distortion of thinking, a degrading of morals and a blunting of empathy. Democracy and its artifacts were invented to counteract this neurological condition and a free press is one of the great inventions of democracy.
The press have to set up the new system and why it is the press and no one else that must develop an independent regulatory regime that will adhere to the Leveson Principles. It isn't for the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or even Parliament to tell them how to do it.
Any position on the future regulation of the press must draw on the long history and association between free speech and democratic participation. Without a culture in which journalism can hold power to account, democracy is only half made.
A free press is vital to a free society and a properly functioning democracy. Once statutory regulation of the press comes in, no matter how far removed from politicians, it will call into question the integrity of the system, and lead to pressure for greater intervention in the future.
It is not in the public interest to have a press capable of running riot in the deliberate manufacture of false news which serves the interests of power. It is in the public interest to have a press which the public can hold to account when it fakes news in the interests of power, and which can thus counterbalance its overwhelming dominance by corporate conglomerates.
Leveson, and the debate that follows, really is not about the r-word. But it helps press and a certain brand of outraged politician to convince the public can be convinced otherwise.
The world is now perilously close to another war in the Middle East. I believe if we could bring Bush and Blair to trial for their war crimes, there will be an enormous shake up in the world which would open the door to talks.