"In this study the author presents self-regulation as a part of a wider subject, that is, freedom of speech, arguing that self-regulation does not intrude on this freedom beyond the limits set by democracy, and that, compared to legislative solution, it is a much more friendly way of implementing the principle that one person's freedom is limited by another person's freedom. What is important is that the media are aware of the power they enjoy. The author gives several examples that illustrate where abuse of that unruly power can lead and argues that it is much better if media themselves hold it at bay and thus avert state's interference with an intention of compelling them to do so. The book recapitulates various views on media accountability and mechanisms reinforcing it, already widely discussed in public. It also looks into the current state of affairs in Slovenia despite the risk that time and further developments in this field may soon cancel out present conclusions. The frame of debate on the establishment of a press council in Slovenia could serve as a useful example for others. The existing Ethics Commission in Slovenia, whose past performance could have paved the way for an elaborate form of self-regulation, unfortunately proved to be an obstacle. The idea about a tripartite press council arose in some a feeling that a press council would be set against the ethics commission itself, even though, to the contrary, it could primarily advance the present work of this commission. The study therefore does not argue that existing ethics commission is needless, but rather points to the ideas about co-regulation that have recently emerged in the EU. They could lead to the shifting of the center, meaning that voluntary self-regulation, which advances media accountability and through it also professional conduct, could be taken away from the media and placed in the hands of users. The protection of professional standards would thus be transformed into the protection of consumer rights." (Summary, page 7)