Moir's column, which was published in October, generated a record 25,000 complaints to the PCC and widespread debate on social networking sites, in particular Twitter. Advertising around the article was later pulled from the Mail's website.
Gately's partner Andrew Cowles claims Moir's original column and a follow-up piece had broken the Editor's Code of Practice on grounds of accuracy, intrusion into grief or shock and discrimination and that the original piece included "pejorative references" to Gately's sexuality and made "inaccurate and misleading" statements on the cause of Gately's death.
In its adjudication, which can be read in full at this link, the PCC says Moir's suggestion that events leading up to Gately's death were "sleazy" and and showed "a very different and more dangerous lifestyle" should be seen as individual judgments and not assertions of fact, particularly because Moir had referenced the official verdict on the death that was available at the time.
The commission says while it may have been uncomfortable with the tenor of Moir's original piece, "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article" and as such there was no breach of Clause 12 [discrimination] in this case.
Freedom of speech
The commission says it understood the nature of Cowles' complaint and those made by members of the public, but did not uphold his complaint and said the column should be considered in light of the wider context of free speech.
Complaints about the timing of the article', which was published on the day before Gately's public funeral, could not be upheld the PCC said as proscribing "a certain type of comment (…) purely on the basis of the proximity of a funeral or memorial service" would be a slide towards censorship.
"The price of freedom of expression is that commentators and columnists say things with which other people may not agree, may find offensive or may consider to be inappropriate. Robust opinion sparks vigorous debate; it can anger and upset. This is not of itself a bad thing. Argument and debate are working parts of an active society and should not be constrained unnecessarily (within the boundaries of the Code and the law)," the commission says in its ruling.
The newspaper's publication of a response to Moir's original article the following Monday, which criticised her views, and the more that 1,600 comments generated by the initial column showed the "the widespread opportunity that exists to respond to an article and make voices of complaint heard".
Commenting on the ruling, PCC director Stephen Abell said the case had been "difficult but important" for the commission to deal with: "The article clearly caused distress to Mr Cowles, as well as many others, and this was regrettable. It was right that those concerned about the article should be able to register their anger in a variety of ways: by writing to the newspaper, by communicating on the internet and by complaining to the PCC. The fact that there were so many forums for challenging Ms Moir's view is evidence of a strong culture of public debate and accountability.
"In the end, the commission, while not shying away from recognising the flaws in the article, has judged that it would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist's right to offer freely-expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention."
In a separate ruling the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) rejected two complaints made to the Metropolitan Police against Moir's article, judging that the column may have caused offence, but did not break the law, the Press Association reports.
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
