So what do we think about the Press Complaints Commission rejecting the complaints about Jan Moir's article on Stephen Gateley's death?

[Aubergines]

I remember there was a lot of anti Moir chat on here when she wrote the article so what do we think of the PCC saying that although the article could be read as homophobic it could not be proved to be so and to condemn it would be censorship?

In my view if 25,000 people perceive something to be homophobic, and see it as so offensive that they complain, then it's hard to argue there is no proof of homophobia. And when the same critical words would NEVER have been written about the death or a straight man, how is that not homophobia.

I also wonder when the PCC would uphold a complaint against a national paper on the grounds of homophobia. Or on any grounds really. It is such a spineless body. The press like to screatch about the injustice of MPs policing themselves but that is exactly what the press does and with equally harmful effects.

I remember when loads of people complained about Heat printing stickers of Harvey Price which took the piss of his disability. The PCC said it could not even investigate unless his family complained. And iof course they never would as they court the press and make their living through the press. So the concerns of mothers who felt the stickers made disabled teasing more likely were ignored because the PCC lives to protect it's industry. Gah.

Well I for one (while finding Moir's article distasteful) am pleased by this on two counts.

Firstly, I was never convinced that she breached the codes of practice. She was sailing pretty close to the wind at times, but I cannot see (and clearly neither can the PCC) that she has flouted the rules.

And secondly, I think this is a victory for a wider issue than this one article. Had the PCC found in favour of Cowles' complaint I would have had grave concerns about the threat that this posed to free speech and the precedent that this might set. I would be disgusted if the complaint had been upheld simply because a section of the public disagreed with her point of view

25,000 complaints is irrelevant - 24,999 of those were from people who had no right to make a complaint in the first place. The PCC states that it "normally accepts complaints only from those who are directly affected by the matters about which they are complaining".

So many people at the time of publication seemed 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.

Freedom of speech is precious and stifling opinions is not in my opinion a desirable approach for any civilised society.

Leningrad, to clarify:

I don't think anyone should be should be able to complain to the PCC, on the grounds that this article may have hurt and harmed people not directly related to the subject of an article.

I have no argument with people criticising, or even campaigning ? thats? part of free speech too.

My concern was around those who wish to silence Moir, to punish her for an opinion she is perfectly entitled to hold. And that is effectly what you are saying when you complain to the PCC (whose code of conduct she has been found not to have broken).

Notanumber - I agree. Thanks for saving me all that typing.

Maybe I mis-read it but I didn't find it homophobic at all.

In fact, didn't Moir state in the article that her son is gay?

Gateley died after taking a stranger back to his apartment and spending the night with him whilst his civil partner slept in their bed.

It is not homophobic to have an opinion on this.

It has also been "glossed" over that Gateley had been taking drugs.

It was a tragic death that deeply shocked a huge number of people, friends and family included.

But I cannot help feeling that Jan Moir was the only person who stood up and questioned just how "clean living" Stephen was.

That does not make the article homophobic.

Am I also right in thinking that the Head of PCC is the top bloke at the Daily Mail, where this was first published?

Now THAT should be investigated it it is correct.

"If the Commission concludes that the Code has been breached (and the breach has not - or cannot - be remedied) it will uphold your complaint in a public ruling. The newspaper or magazine is obliged to publish the critical ruling in full and with due prominence. This is a serious outcome for any editor and puts down a marker for future press behaviour."

If it had been upheld then columnists would think twice before giving their opinion on anything.

I might not care for their opinion but if they have broken no laws they should be allowed to express them.

Just like the rest of us, really.

I gave full support to JM from day 1....and carry on supporting her..(so do the majority)
She has been hounded by homosexuals ..death threats and everything...absolutely disgusting the way she has been treated....

It's ok to send death threats to someone is it..?......just because you don't like a newspaper article

Some people really make me sick...

I'm glad the principle of free speech was upheld. The article wasn't exactly great journalism but 'Trial by Twitter' is not an edifying spectacle either. In these days of spamming, it's very easy to marshall several thousand complaints by e-mail. (Remember the well-organised spontanaeity of the anti-Jerry Springer The Opera campaign?) So good decision.

Moirs article insinuated that Gately's lifestyle contributed to his death-which has not been substantiated.She also made spurious claims about civil partnerships by citing Gately's death and Matt Lucas's ex partners suicide.

How anyone could argue that her article was not homophobic is beyond me.

I object to journalists printing lies and hate filled rhetoric and on this basis I complained about the article.

dp, do you mean the majority of daily mail readers support jm? Yep thats probably true but doesn't make it right.

The PCC was right in its decision.

The article only received the number of complaints because it was read by people who never otherwise would have seen it, thanks to links from websites like this one.

It was clear that it was commentary and opinion, rather than a factual reporting of the news.

People on Mumsnet are outraged when anyone suggests they cannot say what they like, in whatever way they like. It is hypocracy to suggest that this columnist should behave any differently, tbh.

I also think it was a good decision. Bad article.

Yes you are correct and I do agree. I have to admit I had no idea that the PCC was run by the P themselves, kind of makes a mockery don't you think? I thought it would be an independent body.

PCC is self regulating.

Makes it a joke ime.

Haven't read the original article, so don't think I can comment.

I am aware of Jan Moir and her views though, unfortunately.

Good decision

25.000 complaints out of a possible 65 mil people, not exactly overwhelming, and has been said most of those that complained did so from pressure groups on the internet and lets face it a lot of those people make a hobby out of complaining.

From what's come out he did have a dubious private life, but then what pop star doesn't? Should the press stop writing about everyone?

Some of the media practically canonised MJ when he died, now that I found repulsive.

I certainly don't think she should be recieving death threats ffs that just shows the mentality behind some of these people's attitudes.

I wonder when we're going to see the DM championing Jonathan Ross's freedom of speech...

Thought not.

It's hardly surprising that the PCC found against the complaints. It is a totally pointless group, which in this instance rather than saying that Jan Muir had stepped over the line, decided to pat themselves on the back. Free speech is a very important principle that shouldn't be abused by unpleasant hacks who get off on making totally unfounded and unpleasant insinuations, for which they quite clearly are not in the least bit sorry.

The idea that is was all orchestrated and therefore can be ignored is also really problematic. If you feel strongly about something and use the internet to tell other people how you feel is that not also free speech? If they agree with you enough to take some action why should that be dismissed?

Many people on Mumsnet recently were very angry about that stupid (Beta) campaign. Someone here was great at focusing that annoyance into action. Should it therefore be dismissed as not real because some organisation was involved? Or that all those people complained because that was their hobby, rather than they felt very angry? That just seems a rather convenient way to avoid thinking about why something upset such a large number of people. Or is free speech only for the press?

Jan Moir is a columnist - columnists are paid for their personal opinion. these columnists usually have controversial views otherwise their work would make for pretty dull reading.

The PCC ruling was the right one.