Jan Moir's column on Stephen Gately cleared by PCC as free speech

An article about the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately thatprompted 25,000 complaints may have been tasteless and offensivebut it did not break the rules for editors, the Press ComplaintsCommission (PCC) has decided.

"The price of freedom of expression is that often commentatorsand columnists say things with which other people may not agree,may find offensive or may consider to be inappropriate," said thePCC in an adjudication published today. It said it would notendorse a "slide to censorship".

Gately died suddenly in Majorca on 10th October 2009, aged 33.Six days later, the Daily Mail published an article by Jan Moirheadlined "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately'sdeath". The headline was later changed to "A strange, lonely andtroubling death".

Although a post mortem confirmed that Gately had died fromnatural causes through an acute pulmonary oedema, believed to havebeen brought on by a heart attack, the article questioned thisfinding.

Moir wrote: "something is terribly wrong with the way thisincident has been shaped and spun". She claimed there was a "sugarcoating" on the "bitter truth" of the fatality and described thecircumstances of Gately's death as "sleazy" and "less thanrespectable".

Gately's civil partner, Andrew Cowles, complained to the PCC,saying that the article and another by Moir published one weeklater were inaccurate, intrusive at a time of grief anddiscriminatory, in breach of the Editors' Code of Practice.

The PCC received 25,000 other complaints about Moir's originalarticle, the most it has ever received on a single issue. The PCCrarely investigates complaints made by people not directly involvedin articles, though, unless they are about accuracy.

"Many had argued strongly and convincingly that the article wastasteless and offensive," said the adjudication. "While theCommission has made clear previously that issues of taste andoffence do not fall under the remit of the Code, it wished to statefrom the outset that it could quite understand how the column hadgenerated wide anger, given the stance taken by the columnist."

"The complaint also raised an essential point of principle forthe Commission: the extent to which a newspaper has the right topublish opinion that many readers may find to be unpalatable andoffensive," it said.

"Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of an open anddemocratic society," said the PCC. "This is enshrined in the Codeof Practice which states that there is a 'public interest in thefreedom of expression itself'. Individuals have the right toexpress honestly-held opinions, and newspapers have the right topublish them, provided the terms of the Code are not otherwisebreached."

The Commission said it should be slow to prevent columnists fromexpressing their views, however controversial they might be.

"Robust opinion sparks vigorous debate; it can anger and upset,"said the adjudication. "This is not of itself a bad thing. Argumentand debate are working parts of an active society and should not beconstrained unnecessarily (within the boundaries of the Code andthe law)."

"Indeed, the reaction to the article, and the publicity whichhad ensued as a result of its publication, was a testament tofreedom of expression, and was indicative of a broader process atwork, demonstrating the widespread opportunity that exists torespond to an article and make voices of complaint heard," itsaid.

The PCC noted that the Daily Mail had itself published aresponse to the original piece, which criticised Moir's views. Thearticle online had attracted over 1,600 comments, mostly fromindividuals criticising the columnist and the column itself hadbeen widely circulated on social networking sites.

"This highlighted that there were a number of forums in whichchallenges could be made to the columnist's opinion," wrote thePCC. "Ultimately, this was evidence of a healthy system, in whichan initial viewpoint could be so publicly analysed andcountered."

"Both the newspaper and the columnist were confronted with theimpact of what had been published," it said. "This publishedadjudication by the PCC is another means by which generaldiscontent can be registered in the form of a public judgment, eventhough the Commission has not found a breach of the Code. The factthat the complaint has not been upheld does not mean the concernsdid not need to be addressed, but rather that the Commission didnot find that it was right for it to censure the newspaper on thegrounds of the Code."

The PCC said the rules of accuracy were not broken because thearticle was clearly marked as a comment piece. Moir's views werenot presented as assertions of fact, it said.

The Code also provides that: "In cases involving personal griefor shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy anddiscretion and publication handled sensitively."

The PCC said that Moir's article did not breach this ruleeither. Factors in that decision included the regular readership ofJan Moir; that it was not a news item; that it did not seek toprovide new information; that it was in the comment section of thenewspaper; and that it was not published in Ireland, where Gatelywas from and where his memorial was to take place the followingday.

It was also relevant that Gately was famous. "The columnist wasnot commenting on an issue that had otherwise been kept private,"it said.

The PCC said it "cannot agree that it is inherently wrong fornewspapers to publish items that present a negative slant on aperson's death."

It concluded that the intrusion rule had not been breached. "Torule otherwise would be to say that newspapers are not entitled topublish certain opinions (which may be disagreeable to many) onevents that are matters of public discussion," it said. "This wouldbe a slide towards censorship, which the Commission could notendorse."

Another rule in the Code says the press "must avoid prejudicialor pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion,gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness ordisability."

Many complainants said there was an underlying tone ofnegativity towards Gately and Cowles because they were gay.However, the PCC noted that the question of "whether the articlewas homophobic or discriminatory to gay people in general did notfall under the remit of the Code."

It said it was not possible to identify any direct uses ofpejorative or prejudicial language in the article. "The columnisthad not used pejorative synonyms for the word 'homosexual' at anypoint," wrote the PCC.

The adjudication concluded: "The Commission may have beenuncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist's remarks on thetopic; it did not consider, however, that the column had crossedthe line on this occasion such as to raise a breach of theCode."

PCC Director Stephen Abell said: "The fact that there were somany forums for challenging Ms Moir's view is evidence of a strongculture of public debate and accountability.  In the end, theCommission, while not shying away from recognising the flaws in thearticle, has judged that it would not be proportionate to ruleagainst the columnist's right to offer freely-expressed views aboutsomething that was the focus of public attention".