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

"The price of freedom of expression is that often commentators and columnists say things with which other people may not agree, may find offensive or may consider to be inappropriate," said the PCC in an adjudication published today. It said it would not endorse 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 Moir headlined "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death". The headline was later changed to "A strange, lonely and troubling death".

Although a post mortem confirmed that Gately had died from natural causes through an acute pulmonary oedema, believed to have been brought on by a heart attack, the article questioned this finding.

Moir wrote: "something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun". She claimed there was a "sugar coating" on the "bitter truth" of the fatality and described the circumstances of Gately's death as "sleazy" and "less than respectable".

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

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

"Many had argued strongly and convincingly that the article was tasteless and offensive," said the adjudication. "While the Commission has made clear previously that issues of taste and offence do not fall under the remit of the Code, it wished to state from the outset that it could quite understand how the column had generated wide anger, given the stance taken by the columnist."

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

"Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of an open and democratic society," said the PCC. "This is enshrined in the Code of Practice which states that there is a 'public interest in the freedom of expression itself'. Individuals have the right to express honestly-held opinions, and newspapers have the right to publish them, provided the terms of the Code are not otherwise breached."

The Commission said it should be slow to prevent columnists from expressing 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. Argument and debate are working parts of an active society and should not be constrained unnecessarily (within the boundaries of the Code and the law)."

"Indeed, the reaction to the article, and the publicity which had ensued as a result of its publication, was a testament to freedom of expression, and was indicative of a broader process at work, demonstrating the widespread opportunity that exists to respond to an article and make voices of complaint heard," it said.

The PCC noted that the Daily Mail had itself published a response to the original piece, which criticised Moir's views. The article online had attracted over 1,600 comments, mostly from individuals criticising the columnist and the column itself had been widely circulated on social networking sites.

"This highlighted that there were a number of forums in which challenges could be made to the columnist's opinion," wrote the PCC. "Ultimately, this was evidence of a healthy system, in which an initial viewpoint could be so publicly analysed and countered."

"Both the newspaper and the columnist were confronted with the impact of what had been published," it said. "This published adjudication by the PCC is another means by which general discontent can be registered in the form of a public judgment, even though the Commission has not found a breach of the Code. The fact that the complaint has not been upheld does not mean the concerns did not need to be addressed, but rather that the Commission did not find that it was right for it to censure the newspaper on the grounds of the Code."

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

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

The PCC said that Moir's article did not breach this rule either. Factors in that decision included the regular readership of Jan Moir; that it was not a news item; that it did not seek to provide new information; that it was in the comment section of the newspaper; and that it was not published in Ireland, where Gately was from and where his memorial was to take place the following day.

It was also relevant that Gately was famous. "The columnist was not commenting on an issue that had otherwise been kept private," it said.

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

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

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

Many complainants said there was an underlying tone of negativity towards Gately and Cowles because they were gay. However, the PCC noted that the question of "whether the article was homophobic or discriminatory to gay people in general did not fall under the remit of the Code."

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

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

PCC Director Stephen Abell said: "The fact that there were so many forums for challenging Ms Moir's view is evidence of a strong culture of public debate and accountability.  In the end, the Commission, while not shying away from recognising the flaws in the article, has judged that it would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist's right to offer freely-expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention".