It's a big day tomorrow – because at lunchtime, Lord Justice Leveson will reveal his proposals for the regulation of the press.
And if you think that His Lordship's report is a matter which only affects media lawyers like me or the editor of this newspaper, think again. Leveson's proposals will have far reaching consequences for each and every one of us, whatever he proposes.
David Cameron has said he will read the report with "an open mind". Ed Miliband says he wants Leveson's proposals to be implemented swiftly by Parliament – as long as they are "reasonable and proportionate". Nick Clegg is reported to have told the Prime Minister that his party will endorse Leveson's report provided it doesn't impose a heavy handed regulatory regime.
I find it curious that most of our elected leaders should be so willing to risk throwing away the cornerstone of our democracy, a free press, without even seeing Leveson's proposals, let alone giving them any thought.
Yes, criminal behaviour should be investigated, and yes, those who commit crimes should be prosecuted and punished. But there has to be proportionality; a balance has to be struck.
I'm not one of those who advocates a free for all. I'm not saying that the fourth estate should be free of all regulation. Unlike the Marxist commentator with whom I discussed this issue at a newspaper conference recently (his complaint is that the press is already not free enough which is ironic, don't you think, given Marxism's history over the last century), I can see the merit of appropriate regulation which is independent of the state and of politicians.
The problem, however, is that "light touch statutory-based regulation" is the thin end of the wedge. Why should any of us have any confidence that a light touch will not lead to a much more legislative control of the press?
After all, history shows us again and again that if politicians are given power, they only want to extend that power, not reduce it.
You think I exaggerate? Well, look at what happened when local authorities were given the right to carry out surveillance in the wake of the terrorist atrocities of a decade or so ago.
The intention of the legislation was well meaning, but what did many local authorities do? They used their new powers to snoop on their citizens, using the law for purposes which were never intended.
The problem is not that we need new laws to regulate the press but a willingness by those in positions of authority to enforce existing laws. A number of prosecutions arising from the phone hacking scandal are now under way, and as far as I am aware, neither the police nor the CPS are complaining that they have been hampered by legal loopholes.
These investigations and prosecutions could, and should, have been carried out years ago. And what of the Press Complaints Commission? It has become conventional wisdom that the PCC has failed, along with the whole concept of self regulation. Yet there are approximately 1,200 daily and weekly newspapers in the UK, serving tens of millions of our fellow citizens. There is absolutely no question that the overwhelming majority of them are fully signed up to the PCC's Code of Practice. Can you imagine this newspaper ever knowingly ignoring the Code and knowingly engaging in unethical journalism? Of course not, it's unthinkable – and it doesn't happen. If they get something wrong, then a correction or apology follows pretty quickly.
This is how the proverbial 99.9 per cent of the press behaves and it's why I argue that self regulation has been a resounding success for the overwhelming majority of the public.
It's true that the PCC made a number of mistakes over phone hacking and it never really recovered from the decision of the Express Group to withdraw from the scheme, but still – from the perspective of most people, I argue that the PCC has been a real force for good in public life. As Lord Leveson himself has conceded, his inquiry has concentrated on the conduct of a handful of people working for one, possibly two, newspapers. He accepts that the majority of people working in this raucous, boisterous, irreverent (but fundamentally crucial) industry go about their daily business in a responsible and honest way.
I'm not suggesting that statutory-based regulation of the press will immediately result in state control of the press. But I do think that if we allow our politicians to have any kind of power to regulate the press, we are taking an enormous risk with a cornerstone of our democracy.
The state licensing of the press was abolished in this country more than 300 years ago. It would be a disaster for all of us if Lord Justice Leveson proposes anything which puts that independence at risk. I just hope that when our representatives read the report and ponder what to do, they appreciate just what is at stake.