To find this article about Stephen Gately's death utterly vile and callous?

[BiteOfFun]

Quelle surprise- it's in the Daily Hate, and surely represents a new low? What a nasty piece of writing- shame on you, Jan Moir!

Moir journalistic prerogative to state her opinion,and objectors can legitimately complain.which has been happening

It's absolutely fair to criticise Moir, I've already said that.

But complaints to the PCC so that she will not be able to state those opinions in future is quite a different matter.

There?s a difference between people who've read the article employing rhetorical weapons to hit back at Moir on Twitter and sites like this, and those who want to stop views like hers being expressed in future.

Look, plenty of people think that homosexuals and their lifestyle are wrong or immoral. It's perfectly legal for them to hold this view.

You can debate this view them of course, but you can't deny them the right to hold that view. And trying to force the PCC to take action against Moir is precisely what this is.

"would any paper put Nick Griffin on the payroll?" Probably not. But that would be a business decision (that many readers would boycott and circulation would drop, presumably), not one based on the premise that he shouldn't be allowed to because you don't agree with his views.

If Boris Johnson can write for the Telegraph, then so can Nick Griffin. Griffin is a politician for a legal political party.

If she has breached PCC code then she's breached it. Regardless of what you think of her views. Otherwise what's the bloody point of having it?

And yes Griffin is the leader of an elected party but I still can't see any mainstream daily giving him a column. Can you? Be serious.

I'm not completely convinced she has breached the codes, actually, though I do absolutely see the argument for her having done so.

And I've already said that I think Griffin being given a column in a paper is unlikely. My point was that the reason for this is not because he is not allowed to hold and express this viewpoint. It's because a large section of the public find his views repugnant and would boycott the paper.

to counter balance that nasty bitches report
see charlie brookers response in the guardian.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

and follow his advice. complain. what a bitch.

ive complained toe the pcc. thanks to charlie i know what sections have been breached! cheers mr brooker.

So it's ok to call Moir a "nasty" bitch then is it?

But it's not ok for her to voice her opinions on a particular kind of homosexual lifestyle? And she should be reprimanded and fined for doing so?

I abhor what Moir implies in her article (which, by the way, was in the 'comment' section of the paper so was doing exactly what it says on the tin - one person commenting on a current news story - it didn't claim to be reportage) but I absolutely defend her right to imply it.

Engage with the issue and debate it, yes.

Calling her names and shrieking "I'm telling on you!", no.

yep. she is a nasty bitch. actually. the article implies that mr gately died because of his "particular kind of homosexual lifestyle" where is her evidence that he died because of his homosexuality? or his lifestyle? yes the article was nasty and insensitive and plain horrible. you defend her right to be a bitch it you like. ill defend MY right to say thats what she is. the difference is im not reporting it as fact in a daily "news" paper.

She's not reporting it as fact. That's my point. It's just her opinion. She doesn't pretend otherwise.

I don't agree with it, but I defend her right to hold it.

And quite honestly, calling her a "nasty bitch" really does not give you the moral highground. It's a pretty sloppy method of debate if you ask me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Moir
Jan Moir's response

no ive not got the moral high ground but i dont believe i pretended to have? she has. and my method of debate is always this sloppy after 3 glasses of wine - if you want razor sharp wit ill have to get back to you tomorrow.

and if she is allowed her opinion then so am i.

"You can debate this view them of course, but you can't deny them the right to hold that view."

my point exactly. i have my view. thankyou for fighting for my right to air it.

if she is going to air her view then im going to air mine.

Moir been the loser in verbal battle. Many people more articulate than myself have revealed Moir's argument as rupugnant and illogigal.

Her reputation has taken an almighty battering. Good. Thats' going to hurt her much more than any dressing down from the PCC should they uphold the complaints (and I in no way think that its' a foregone conclusion that this will be the case).

I have no argument with people criticising, or even campaigning ? thats? part of free speech too. But demanding she be fired? Demanding she be prosecuted?

I have to say that I find this much more concerning than one journalist's offensive rantings.

VicarInaBooTu, you are in fact claiming the moral highground, you know you are. She is Wrong and you are Right and what's more, she a Nasty Bitch to boot.

I hold Moir and her views on this subject in very low regard, but I would prefer to destroy her shoddy argument with logic and reason and let the resultant damage to her career speak for itself rather than simply call her names and report her to The Authorities in the hope that they punish her.

yeah ok, cos your not trying to be seen to be claiming even higher moral highground at all are you?

i think she is a nasty piece of work. i think youd be hard pressed to say otherwise, which your going to tell me your not, blah blah blah defending her right to freedom of speech, blah blah blah, your going to cleverly point out how im all wrong and your right blah blah blah and how ive just run headlong into reporting her without cleverly thinking it all through and tying myself up in knots defending my freedom of speech by defending her freedom of speech even though its probably libelous and homophobic and massively fabricated, and lets not report the sad little narrow minded journo because she will be feeling all bad now that she has seen the error of her ways doe to joe public shouting at her.
hope thats ok then. im sure his family will take comfort in that thought.

You're coming across as a little shrill, to be honest, but I'll try to address your points.

"your going to tell me your not, blah blah blah defending her right to freedom of speech, blah blah blah, your going to cleverly point out how im all wrong and your right blah blah blah and how ive just run headlong into reporting her without cleverly thinking it all through and tying myself up in knots defending my freedom of speech by defending her freedom of speech"

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'blah blah blah', but if you're saying that my argument is that you can't claim freedom of speech for yourself (to call Moir names) but then deny her the freedom of speech to state views which she is perfectly legally entitled to hold, well then yes, that is correct. I'm not sure how your counter-argument which consists of "blah blah blah" refutes that.

"lets not report the sad little narrow minded journo because she will be feeling all bad now that she has seen the error of her ways doe to joe public shouting at her."

In journalism, reputation is all. Her offensive views have left her reputation in tatters and by extention have damaged her career. So I couldn't possibly comment on whether or not she has "seen the error of her ways", but she'll certainly feel the impact of the airing of her unpleasant views.

This is good. The beauty of free speech in action. She's given her opinion, countless others have given theirs in turn, and she has come out the loser.

But you're saying that you want to report Moir because what she says is "..probably libelous and homophobic and massively fabricated". No you're not. You want to report her because you don't agree with her views.

It's not libel because Moir is not making any concrete claims about the circumstances surrounding Gateley's death.

Nor is it "fabrication" because Moir claims nothing as fact, she is quite clear that she is extrapolating and is also careful to stick to general discussion about the gay community (although of course she is infering that this therefore applies to Gateley's situation)

It's not illegal to be homophobic, whether you like that fact or not, and she therefore has every right to state her views of homosexual partnerships.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with her. All I'm saying is that you can't report her just because you don't like what she is saying. I'm not sure what you find so difficult to understand about this.

i really dont know why im bothering but here goes.

see this code of practice here???

www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

she has breached it,(sections 1, 5 and 12) so i am quite within my rights to complain to the PCC if i so choose, or am i not? what exactly is your problem with me doing this? the PCC is there for this very reason? or am i missing something here? i CAN report her and i have!im not sure what you find so difficult to understand about that.

Whether his partner was doing something with a bloke picked up in a club or not is none of our business really.

And yes some 33 year olds do just get in to their PJs and go to sleep never to wake up again.

I think some journalist just like sensationalizing every thing TBH

Lot more important things going on it the world for me to speculate about a couples sex habits or why someone I never knew died.

It is sad, but like every sleb death mud will be raked, thrown and some will stick, its the way of the press

Firstly, perhaps you should calm down a little.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that she has breached the codes of practice.

It's a wider issue than this one article. It's about the threat that this poses to free speech and the precedent that this might set.

And - seeing as you're so insistant that you are "quite within your rights" to complain to the PCC - maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I am aware, you are not in fact related to Gately. The PCC states that it "normally accepts complaints only from those who are directly affected by the matters about which they are complaining".

You seem to think that it should make an exception in relation to Moir's article. Why?

Do you think that anyone should be able to complain, on the grounds that this article may have hurt and harmed people not directly related to Gately?

In other words, the PCC should open itself to the whining of everyone who ever took offence to something they read in the press?

What do you think the end result of this would be? I can tell you, it would be an ulta censorious PCC that would be encouraged and tempted to reprimand the media every single time someone or other decides that what they have read offends them.

Incidentally, you seem unwilling to address the issue of your own viewpoints about Moir and apply the same rules to them that you wish to be applied to her.

You've called Moir a "nasty bitch" on a public forum. Why are you excempt from the laws on libel which you are so convinced that Moir has contravened and should be punished for?

Either everyone can state their opinion or no-one can. You cannot stifle her simply because you don't like what she's saying, yet expect to be able to say whatever you like simply because you're convinced you're in the right.

Agree with notanumber. At last a voice of reason.

Just because Charlie Brooker declared that she had violated those sections of the PCC code - doesn't mean she has.

I think the Jan Moir piece was horrible, but I don't think any PCC code has been broken. Columnists are given special licence by the PCC.

A few months ago James Martin wrote a very aggressive column about cyclists and bragged about how he likes to drive up behind them and try and knock them off their bikes - the PCC got over 500 complaints but they still ruled that, as a columnist, he is allowed to express his views however unpalatable they may be to some.

I expect the same will apply to JM

kimi, I am curious...

If Gately had been hetrosexual and he and his wife had picked up a guy in a club then brought him back to their appartment and while the wife and the pick-up were in the bedroom, Gately had been smoking in the living room and then later died, would we still be saying that it's none of our business?

It absolutely wouldn't be, of course, but I'm wondering if it would be more acceptable (in liberal circles) to be speculating on how - if at all - the events leading up to his death wre connected to it.

I'm just pondering whether we have got some wierd kind of liberal fascism going on here.

I think it was distasteful and ghoulish and insensitive on Moir to write the article, and I'd think this if Gately had been hetrosexual. I'm sure many others would also think so. But I wonder if there would still have been such public outrage if this had been the case?

Just to clarify - I'm not implying that that I think that Gately's actions before his death are at all connected to his death. I'm very happy to bow to the coroner's verdict on this!

I was just saying - not very clearly - that I can (sort of) see Moir's argument - not that I agree with it - and am wondering if it would have received the same reaction had Gately been hetrosexual.

Oh FFS 'liberal fascism' get over yourself.

I think you should be allowed to say or publish anything you want within legal limits. She can say what she likes but has to accept that if you write things like that then you should expect others to have an opinion too.

And FWIW ....... She started it....

What is moir's argument exactly? I still can't see what point she was making..