Hungary’s Media Law was widely criticised by Western European governments and commentators ­ Britain included - as a return to the bad old days of a state press. But after the Leveson Inquiry, Britain runs the risk of reintroducing a form of state licensing of the press: something last seen in 1695. Is it naïve to think that the press should be free to self-regulate or is it possible to set up regulatory bodies free of party political bias? Would Hungary’s new media council be unobjectionable if its members were not appointed by Parliament but by some other body? Who then should they be appointed by? Is it safe to let anyone ­ however noble their intentions ­ decide for the public what is in the interests of the public? Or is that best decided by the sometimes grubby, sometimes sensationalist, sometimes dedicated, investigatory activities of journalists? If the press is free to speak truth to power, is it not right that power sometimes ‘tell truth to the press’? Are the days of a bad but free press over and the days of a good but state controlled press beginning?