DISQUS

sarahditum · 1 month ago

I often think that there's a confusion between the right to free speech (which I think should exist and be defended), and an obligation for broadcasters and publishers to provide a platform (which doesn't necessarily exist, and which campaigners are justified in undermining by addressing the editorial staff or advertisers). Jan Moir can say what she likes about Gately and civil partnerships, but the Mail was under no obligation to publish it - and for a newspaper to publish a factually inaccurate report of a recent death is, I think, the sort of thing that edges beyond "defensible free speech" and into "errors deserving sanction".

gregwatts · 1 month ago

Of course, the Mail could have spiked the Moir piece, but I think it would have been wrong to do so. She is paid to express opinions. Some of them will almost certainly offend some people.

As for the facts surrounding Stephen Gateley's death, none of us know for sure what they are. Moir is speculating. That's what columnists do. They stir things up.

There are many columnists whose opinions I disagree with and whose handling of facts is shaky. But I would still rather that they have a platform in newspapers. I don't want to only read writers who reflect my own views.