Monday's Sun enlisted Winston Churchill for its final push against press regulation. But if The Sun really wanted to invoke Churchill it should have paused to consider what the actions of the "few" have meant for the "many".
For all the finger-pointing, there is no doubt we are where we are today - discussing the introduction of press regulation via Royal Charter - because a few chose to abuse the freedom of the press that so many held dear.
The Daily Mail has reminded us that people died defending the right to freedom of expression. But that merely serves to highlight how shamefully that right has been abused by some since.
After all, people didn't lay down their lives so newspapers could get better candid shots of pre-teen girls, or so papers could accuse innocent people of murder or stalk grieving families and invade the private lives of people whose only crime is doing something the public might be interested in, rather than something which is in the public interest.
Something clearly had to change. The newspaper industry had proven itself incapable of self regulation.
One of the most compelling arguments for more effective press regulation came during the Leveson Inquiry from an unlikely source.
Hugh Whittow, editor of the Daily Express told the Inquiry that his paper had withdrawn from the PCC because the watchdog had failed to protect The Express from its own worst excesses.
"I don't think [press regulator the PCC] was serving our best interests at the time because of the McCanns – that was a big story for us and I felt that they should have intervened. Everyone had too much leeway, there was nobody intervening at all as a result."
Whittow was effectively admitting that his newspaper simply could not master its unhealthy obsession with the McCanns. His admission was backed up by the words of Gerry McCann who said in February this year:
"The slurs went on for months despite our best efforts... And they continued for the simple reason that there was no-one and nothing with the power to stop them."
Whether you like it or not, that is why today we are discussing the institution of press regulation via Royal Charter. It is not because politicians longed to control the press, whatever the press may argue, but because the public was so appalled by what was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry that the government could no longer be seen not to act.
Now we have to wait and see how the newspapers will respond, beyond the obligatory scare stories about the death of free speech or articles comparing the UK to the Soviet Union, which would have us believe that effective press regulation may as well be a one way ticket to the gulag.
Such hyperbole - including the predictable mentions of George Orwell (see today's front page of The Sun, right) and comparisons to Zimbabwe and Iran - has merely cheapened the arguments against effective press regulation. Ultimately nobody put forward a credible argument which was as compelling as the arguments for trying to prevent a repeat of the way the McCanns and the likes of Christopher Jeffries were treated.
However, this doesn't mean anything is fixed or resolved.
We must now wait to see whether the new regulatory framework can actually be implemented and run effectively. We wait to see fully who is included and who opts to include themselves. A number of newspapers remain guarded about the likelihood of signing up - then what? These are all questions we need proper answers to.
In the meantime though we have to see past the obvious complaints from the press and remember why this became necessary. If this move helps restore some trust in the reputation of the press - and we should all hope it does - then they have more to gain than anybody.