tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post6577244670563549063..comments2024-03-25T12:55:40.911+00:00Comments on Caron's Musings: The Ethics of Journalism in light of the Jan Moir PCC Cop OutAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-9650892217883646142010-02-19T12:15:37.214+00:002010-02-19T12:15:37.214+00:00I've also heard it defended on the grounds of ...I've also heard it defended on the grounds of free speech but I'm really not sure I agree. <br /><br />There is a point where we have to balance our right to say anything we like against the rights of others not to be exposed to the corrosive and silencing effects of hate speech. <br /><br />This principle is already enshrined in law - Ms Moir was not free to write an overtly racist article in the same vein - and she may have had problems defending her right to speak about a disabled person in the way she did about Mr Gateley. <br /><br />The common factor? No-one chooses their skin colour, their level of ability or, crucially, their sexuality. <br /><br />it is also arguable that by making some rules about how we express ourselves in the public square that society guarantees the free-est possible amount of speech for the largest number of people.<br /><br />Personally I think she crossed the line into hate speech and the judgement was ridiculous.LJHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-73958587678122005222010-02-19T11:20:31.229+00:002010-02-19T11:20:31.229+00:00I found this ruling really difficult to understand...I found this ruling really difficult to understand. A lot of people are defending it on the basis that she has a right to free speech and you can’t punish someone just for saying something offensive. I think that is correct – I am not in favour of censoring opinion because opinion is by its nature subjective and you can’t say whether it is “true” or “false”. You can just agree or disagree. But in this case she didn’t write an article which gave her opinions on gay people in general. She attached her opinions to the death of a real person and in the course of it said things about him which were demonstrably false. To me that is surely quite straightforward. Journalists tells lies = journalist is wrong. I just don’t see how you can argue, as the Press Complaints Commission appears to be doing, that facts are subjective, that she is entitled to say that someone died an “unnatural death” and imply that is connected with his being gay or alleged drug use when in fact he died of a congenital heart defect. A journalist who uses false information to support an argument is just plain wrong and should withdraw their comments.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.com