Was the PCC right over the Moir column?

The Press Complaints Commission have not upheld a complaint against Jan Moir and her article on the death of Steven Gately.

Over 25,000 people complained, rightly so, about the offensive nature of the article. It was homophobic, arguably intruded on grief, and it was in very poor taste. Moir received a huge backlash and public embarrassment. She’ll never live this down.

However, was the PPC’s ruling right?

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (1998) protects our freedom of expression. Moir, however irresponsibly or distastefully, was exercising her right under article 10. This is something we should relentlessly protect.

That said, some of the PCC’s sentiments, and choice of words and phrases in their adjudication are peculiar. Malcolm Coles highlights some over on his blog:

PCC: “While many complainants considered that there was an underlying tone of negativity towards Mr Gately and the complainant on account of the fact that they were gay, it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article.”

Jan Moir: “the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see”.

What lifestyle does she mean here?

The PCC claim that Moir’s article didn’t breach clause 5 of their code, which covers intrusion into grief, saying:

It cannot agree that it is inherently wrong for newspapers to publish items that present a negative slant on a person’s death. The article had questioned the circumstances which led to the tragedy, yet it had not sought to do so in a flippant manner, or present gratuitous details about the death. The basis for all of the information in the piece had been previously placed into the public domain…

If describing a natural death, as proven by post mortem, as “sleazy”  isn’t “flippant”, what is? If, because Gately had smoked marijuana on the night of his death, insinuating he must have taken hard drugs isn’t “flippant”, what is?

It also states that one factor considered is that the article wasn’t published in Ireland, Gately’s home and where his funeral was taking place the day after publication, thus not intruding on grief. But hold on a minute, it was published on the internet. Which is exactly where most of the backlash came from. Plus, unless I’m severely mistaken, the Irish have the internet. It seems as though they’re viewing this as only being published in print, without considering the online aspect.

Moir apparently regrets the article and has apologised for any offence. She faced an onslaught of criticism for the article, as well as thousands of complaints about her to the PCC, and public ridicule.

Is this punishment enough for an ill advised column? Probably. Whoever reported her to the Crown Prosecution Service was wrong to do so. Causing offence is not criminal. Protest, complain, kick up a shit-storm – but don’t try to have someone prosecuted for using their right to free expression.

There are problems with the PCC’s adjudication and there’s still some debate to be had. But, ultimately, I think they came to the right conclusion.

The BBC report sums it up well:

The PCC recognised there were flaws in the article, but said the price of freedom of expression was that columnists said things which other people might find offensive or inappropriate.

Let’s just leave it at that.