The education secretary has spoken out against regulating the press at the Leveson Inquiry.

Michael Gove MP said today free speech means "some people are going to get offended". He has previously claimed the inquiry is having a chilling effect on the press, since it was announced last summer.

Gove said he believes the law of the land is sufficient to deal with offending behaviour by newspapers.

He said: "I have a prior belief that we should use existing laws of the land and that individuals and institutions should be judged fairly on the basis of the existing laws of the land."

The minister also said he thought it was a consequence of free speech that some people would sometimes be offended.

He told the inquiry: “I don’t think any of us can accept that behaviour necessarily, but there are a variety of sanctions. There is social ostracism, disapproval. There is the penalty that someone pays who chooses to use a commercial outlet to publish that which is inappropriate or distasteful, but by definition, free speech doesn’t mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time.”

He added: “I’m unashamedly on the side of those who say that we should think very carefully before legislation and regulation because the cry ‘something must be done’ often leads to people doing something which isn’t always wise.”"It is often the case that individuals reach for regulation in order to deal with failures of character or morality, and sometimes that regulation is right and appropriate but some of us believe that before the case for regulation is made, the case for liberty needs to be asserted as well."

Lord Justice Leveson said he did not need to be told about the importance of free speech and was concerned the education secretary was excusing unacceptable behaviour.

He said: "Mr Gove, I don’t need to be told about the importance of free speech, I really don’t. But I am concerned that the effect of what you say might be that you are in fact taking the view that behaviour which everybody, so far in this inquiry, has said is unacceptable, albeit not nessarily criminal, has to be accepted because of the right of free speech. Is that right?"

In February, Gove – a former Times leader writer, and comment, news, Saturday and assistant editor – said in a speech to journalists at Westminster the inquiry would negatively affect the industry.

He said at the time: “I want to concentrate on the big picture and the big picture is that there is a chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson.”

Gove said today he was skeptical about a small claims mechanism for dealing with privacy and libel complaints but agreed defamation law too expensive and sometimes manipulated by the wealthy.

He went on to say titles like Private Eye – not currently within the Press Complaints Commission’s remit – and blogs would opt out of voluntary regulation.

The judge and politician clashed as Gove said good intentions “can result in the curtailment of individual freedom and an unrealistic expectation of how individuals behave”.

Leveson said: "I would further agree that bureaucracy is extreme unsatisfactory and that law doesn’t necessarily solve problems. But if some sort of regime is to be in place - and you may say that we don’t even need a PCC, it should just be a free for all - but if you don’t take that view then there has to be some structure... that permits those who wish to complain that their liberties are being interfered with, that their rights have been infringed in order that they can obtain redress."

He added: "That has led me to consider and to suggest... that some sort of mechanism could be devised which allows for small claims to be resolved outside the court, and enable people to obtain swift redress."