Comments on: PCC & Jan Moir: business as usual?

By: PC and the PCC (by PC) « In the Dark

PC and the PCC (by PC) « In the Dark — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:21:34 +0000

[...] discussions of the outcome. If you’re interested, I recommend The Free Speech Blog and Enemies of Reason for two different takes on the affair. I’m sure you will all have your own views on whether [...]

By: Mawgen

Mawgen — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:30:08 +0000

I simply don’t understand how you are not writing a column for a national paper. Please keep trying!

By: The Bristol Blogger

The Bristol Blogger — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:08:56 +0000

It’s not about the issue though. It’s about the precedent.

If they censure Moir/the Mail they’ve then set the precedent for every other group. Rest assured the religious nutters, the racists et al. endlessly complain to them too.

The PCC is basically a toothless, cowardly, self-interested regulator. But be careful what you wish for instead …

By: links for 2010-02-19 « Embololalia

links for 2010-02-19 « Embololalia — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:07:08 +0000

[...] PCC & Jan Moir: business as usual? « Enemies of Reason There will be those, in the wake of the PCC's breezy rejection of 25,000 complaints about Jan Moir's despicable article about Stephen Gately, who think this is some kind of triumph for free speech, and a crushing defeat for the evil Twitter Mob. But that's missing the point entirely. [...]

By: Linkblogging For 19/02/10 « Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

Linkblogging For 19/02/10 « Sci-Ence! Justice Leak! — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:39:02 +0000

[...] unimpressed with the PPC’s behaviour over Jan Moir, over on LDV. More on this at Unspeak, Enemies Of Reason and [...]

By: Anton Vowl

Anton Vowl — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:51:38 +0000

Where was the call for a ban though? I certainly wasn’t calling for it to be banned. Can’t you be annoyed, and argue that something has breached a code which exists, without wanting it to be banned? Surely.

By: Fruitbat

Fruitbat — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:29:47 +0000

Twitter was the ideal medium for this to be played out through, because the immediacy of it, and the speed at which things can be retweeted, means that anything that fires up a large number of people can spread and flare up into something massive extremely quickly. Think about the Iran protests; they were stamped on so quickly that Twitter became an essential part of spreading news virally on a minute by minute basis. Columnists writing garbage are ten a penny, which is why daily blogs ripping the shit out of them are essential to keep any criticism relevant, and Twitter is an essential part of spreading them quickly.

By: The Bristol Blogger

The Bristol Blogger — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:38:10 +0000

The free speech argument over this is a little more nuanced than the abstract claim “Free speech trumps everything!”

While the classical liberal idea that freedom of speech and expression is vital for social progress and should therefore be encouraged does apply here, there’s also a more subtle concern that providing a de facto ‘right’ to be offended to special interest groups could have a negative cumulative effect on freedom of expression over time.

If the Moir campaign is granted their ‘right’ to be offended and concessions (like apologies, censorship, bans, sackings etc) made then the next campaign who feel they’ve been offended will feel entitled to a similar ‘right’.

Of course such campaigns aren’t the sole preserve of the left and progressives. These campaigns can be mobilised by the right and by religious interests. Remember the Brand/Ross campaign?

Do we give concessions to all interest groups who are offended? How do we decide? Is there a means of constructing a hierarchy of offence caused (suitably policed by the state or a quasi-state body)?

I therefore doubt in the long term these types of campaigns will deliver power to the people. The power will always lie with the body that gets to decide what is and isn’t offensive.

It’s not that free speech trumps everything, it’s that tolerance is the simplest and least worst option.

By: Northernbloke

Northernbloke — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:46:35 +0000

Jan Moir actually did violate article 5 of the PCC code of conduct (it regards sensitivity in relation to grieving), and she bloody admitted it in print, when she lamely tried to defend her nasty little screed, by owning up that it was INsensitive, to publish the article on the day before Stephens funeral. So I can’t really see why the PCC ruling didn’t go like this.

PCC person A: Article 5 stipulates “”"”" Sensitivity “”" relation to grieving. It’s been claimed Jan Moir was insensitive, by 25 000 complaints and even some journalists.

PCC person B: Which journalist?

PCC person A: Jan Moir.

PCC person B: Can we go home now?

Now I’m not saying that having Paul Dacre as chairman of the PCC code of conduct is a sever conflict of interest, but hmmmm??

By: George Allwell

George Allwell — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:42:50 +0000

Brilliant Anton – I concur wholly that your day job is robbing the public of potentially more articles of this ilk. This should be the editorial for any newspaper tomorrow that is sick and tired of hate-filled fact-less bigoted nonsense being churned out by these so-called commentators. She has the right to say and write it, but the public also has a right to challenge its validity and truthfulness, and because it was filled with blatant lies – be issued with an retraction.

I do often wonder if this level of publicity for a columnist is constructive? Would it not have been better if no-one commented and the article was left to rot on whatever page it was wrongly printed? Anyway – if I never read another word written by her, my life will be the better for it.

As for the PCC, what a shower of Dacre-shite that is. In my opinion.