Don't take a chainsaw to press freedom Tomorrow, Lord Justice Leveson will report on press standards. If, as Churchill declared, "a free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize" then statutory regulation is an insidious sedative that threatens our democracy. We take for granted investigative journalism that speaks truth to power - from the exposé of Stephen Lawrence's killers to the revelation of MPs" expenses. But, look to France to see what a state-regulated press means. It left Dominique Strauss-Kahn to walk through the raindrops to the cusp of the presidency, despite a string of ugly reports of sexual violence. It allowed Jacques Barrot to be appointed European Commissioner, despite a conviction for embezzlement masked by law. From Hungary to Russia, regulating journalists has inevitably stifled media freedoms. The Leveson Inquiry risks the classic British response of legislating when the real problem - from hacking to bribing police - is timorous enforcement of the law. Do we need another trumped-up quango regulating its way to relevance? Licensing journalists is a draconian measure suited to Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Communist China. Yet, having squeezed the life out of the print press, the most irresponsible bile would spread online like wildfire anyway. Or will blogs be licensed too? All over the world? Then there is the proposal to entrench in statute a beefed-up version of the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice. I wonder how many people reaching for this innocuous-sounding answer have read the code. It sets out opaque general principles, not clear rules that translate into black-letter law. So, statutory regulation means either spelling out the rules, or empowering the new enforcement body with enormous scope to make it up as it goes along. Both risk a chilling effect on responsible journalism, tempting further regulation as enthusiastic legislators try to nail the jelly down. This is the British disease. From health and safety rules that led schools to ban conkers, to surveillance powers that saw jobsworth council snoopers following children home from school to check their catchment area, over-zealous legislation compounded by overweening bureaucracy leads to abuse that smothers our freedoms. Then there are proposals to fine errant newspapers. For what, precisely? Journalists who break the law can already be fined or jailed. Editors who smear without basis can be sued. No fine could match the reputational damage the News of the World suffered after the hacking revelations, which put the country's most widely read tabloid out of business. Yet the vagueness of a code makes fines unpredictable and arbitrary - albeit a field day for lawyers. An extra tier of disciplinary action against individuals is equally pointless. Where between the criminal law and being fired would sanctions bite? Rapping journalists over the knuckles for stories that are neither illegal nor defamatory would risk becoming a professional badge of honour. Equally, suspending publication of newspapers that fall short of "industry standards" is too severe a penalty to be left to the whim of a quango. The global proliferation of blogs and social media would render such sanctions obsolete. Many sites would relish the chance to flout the rules that silenced Fleet Street. Thomas Jefferson quipped that "the liberty of speaking and writing... guards our other liberties." Yet we have become remarkably casual about defending that bedrock liberty. We've seen sellers of "B------- to Blair" T-shirts fined, pacifist protesters prosecuted for reading out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq, and an eccentric Oxford Street preacher, Philip Howard, muzzled by Asbo for pleading, "Don't be a sinner, be a winner with Jesus." We have public order legislation used to threaten a 15-year-old boy with prosecution for holding a placard calling Scientology a "cult." Hotel owners are dragged through the courts for debating religion with guests, and a frustrated traveller convicted for joking via Twitter that an airport should be blown up. We are already succumbing to the slippery slope. The press is far from perfect. Having successfully sued a tabloid for a false and malicious smear, I am under no illusions. But resorting to statutory regulation to discipline hacks would be like pruning a bonsai with a chainsaw. We could start by enforcing the two-year prison sentence we have for hacking. And while it is right to curb spurious libel claims, changes to "no-win no-fee" arrangements need to be tailored to avoid newspapers trashing the little guy. How many people could afford to defend themselves from the appalling smear suffered by Lord McAlpine? Moves towards mediating or arbitrating libel claims without the enormous cost of litigation would benefit all sides. Yet wider media standards should stay subject to self-regulation. Stronger investigative powers for an upgraded PCC, with more lay members and possibly a judge in the chair, would help. More salient apologies - including naming offending journalists - and a prominent right to reply would help vindicate the bullied and shame the irresponsible. For the odd refusenik editor who refused to opt in, removal of their VAT exemption would provide a financial incentive to think twice. Beyond that, real danger lies. Under dictatorship, the attack on media freedoms is sudden and severe. In a democracy, it is subtle and surreptitious. Lord Justice Leveson heard nothing to warrant crossing the Rubicon to statutory regulation of newspapers. Dominic Raab is the Conservative MP for Esher & Walton