This was a week for sweet revenge. The story that the News of the World had paid nearly £1m to silence three people suing it over interceptions of their mobile phone messages has unleashed a torrent of vitriol across Westminster. MPs have been having a terrible time recently thanks to revelations in The Daily Telegraph about their expenses — revelations acquired for cash and through dubious means. Parliamentarians dared not retaliate against that newspaper, however, because what it published was in the public interest. Now they have a chance to have a go at the press in general, and they have seized it with relish.

There was revenge, too, for those in Labour who have not forgiven the Tories for ousting the No 10 aide Damian McBride for underhand tactics. Here was a chance to attack David Cameron’s spin doctor, Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor when the intercepts were said to have taken place. By attacking him, they could attack the Tory leader.

Then there was the relish with which the BBC covered the story. The corporation has taken a pounding for executives’ bloated salaries, fat expense accounts, generous pensions and all round profligacy. It joined in the kicking of the press, though it is known it has used questionable journalistic techniques in the past.

Despite the schadenfreude and merriment, there are serious issues at stake. MPs are muttering about a privacy law that they say would protect individuals but we believe would curb press freedom. We know they tried to flout the Freedom of Information Act by redacting controversial parts of their expenses. Had we relied on the authorised version, there would have been no expenses scandal.

The Telegraph paid for that information and was right to do so. Many years ago The Sunday Times paid for documents essential for the thalidomide exposure. But nobody would condone illegal hacking and certainly not electronic “fishing expeditions” in search of stories.

We should be clear about two things, however. Self-regulation has worked. The Press Complaints Commission provides rapid redress for those who believe they have been wronged, without recourse to expensive legal action. Journalists and editors take it seriously.

Furthermore, curbing legitimate investigative journalism would be hugely damaging. At least the government has abandoned proposed prison sentences for journalists under the Data Protection Act, providing there is a public interest defence. It is right that when journalists overstep the mark they should be held accountable, but if this frenzy leads to further restrictions on the press, we will all be the poorer, knowing even less about those who seek to govern our lives.