There has been a good deal of debate about the Media Council Act in the last week or so.

Such a debate is welcomed; at the very least, it provides opportunities to explain the role of the media in a free society and the importance of freedom of speech. This newspaper and other members of the media in Bermuda and overseas have expressed their reservations about the Bill that was tabled in Parliament. So, too, have legal experts and others. It is not necessary to go over all of the problems that have been highlighted.

But several points are worth highlighting about some of the principles involved.

Freedom of speech is of central importance in a democracy. The right to express ideas and opinions is a fundamental right. But as with many rights, it is never more important than when the opinion being expressed is unpopular. Still, there are limits. The person falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of this. Freedom of speech is no defence when it used maliciously and causes injury to people.

This is well established. So too, in journalism is the concept that reporting should be fair and accurate, especially of public institutions like the courts, and that there are limits to what information is in the public interest.

That's why this newspapers has a Code of Practice which can be seen on www.theroyalgazette.com. Much of that Code is taken from the British Press Complaints Council. It should also be noted that the media in Bermuda, compared to much of the media elsewhere is quite restrained in what it covers and how it covers the news. Having said that, most media organisations in Bermuda accept the general idea that some form of media complaints council is a valid idea. One of the major roles of the media is to act as a watchdog over major institutions, and that function, which has come about over time, raises the question of "who watches the watchdog".

By the same token, there are times when people feel they have been misrepresented, short of being libelled, in the media, but have been unable to get satisfaction from a particular media organisation. In those cases, a credible and independent media complaints commission or council would be a good avenue for people to seek redress.

It is also true that when Government first floated the idea of a Press Council in late 2008, the media said then it would prefer to establish its own commission. Subsequently, a good deal of work was done on such a Commission, but for various reasons, notably pressure of other work, it did not come to fruition.

Nonetheless, a media-led and funded commission remains the best approach to this and this newspaper, along with others, has proposed to several MPs that Parliament now gives the media 12 months to launch a Media Council together and see how it works in practice. If, in a year's time, the media has failed to get it done or what's done is not working, then Parliament would have every right to come back and institute its own form of council. The threat of legislation is a powerful means of focusing the mind.

That is what has been suggested. And it is the kind of model that is in place in most other countries. It is not perfect and the various press councils overseas have been modified and improved over the years. But it is a better approach than a Government-appointed model, in which, even with the best intentions, there will always be a perception of bias.

Of course, the same can be said of a self-regulating, industry-organised and funded commission, which is why the appointments process would have to be done at arms length from the media. It would be better for such an approach to be tried first than to have Government impose a law about which so many concerns have been raised.