Hi cat 
. I was slightly surprised by the response and emphasis on privity, for want of a better term, though now it makes sense, in terms of an anti-floodgate type policy.
Am thinking about public interest - though it's widely invoked in the law, definitions are not forthcoming. This is presumably extra judicial since PCC is self regulating, but limiting freedom of expression is permitted under the following heads in Art 10 ECHR:
- necessary and proportionate limitation
- to pursue a legitimate aim, namely
o the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
o the prevention of disorder or crime;
o the protection of health or morals;
o the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
o maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
So I suppose I will borrow this structure and write back to them to say that I think that it is proportionate, and that it is necessary to protect certainly the reputation and rights of this individual (though that must collapse into defamation) and the rights of women as a group under Art 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
I agree wholeheartedly with you that the article belittles women, and legitimises disregarding and targeting women, but I have zero faith that they will agree or take is seriously.
I have had a quick scout about for some Art 10 cases for suppor but the law seems very scattered and undeveloped inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases/.
I suspect the type of journalism we are talking about is too nebulous and insidious to be accommodated within its framework, which is geared toward specific incidents, rather than a culture.
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf