George > She may, in your opinion, be a “nasty, horrid woman”, she may be a “sensationalist of the worst kind” (is there a good kind?), she may not “deserve a readership”. But that doesn’t make it hate speech.
And you can’t hold her responsible for the comments that are left on that site. Look at any “news” or newspaper site worldwide and you’ll see questionable comments on the most mundane of articles. Are you going to label them all as “inciting hate speech”?
As for your comment on the timing of the article, would it have been better for her to wait until he was buried, then? He is was a celebrity. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Alison > Agreed. Yes, we all make mistakes, but a sincere apology would not be to claim that “mine was nearly as bad as hers” after this whole sordid tale. This was very much a case of Stephen Fry whipping his followers up into a frenzy over the issue. Which would all be well and good if:

a) He wasn’t now denying that he did it, and
b) He wasn’t moaning 3 days earlier about the lack of free speech over the Trafigura story.

HH > Yes, I’ll certainly agree (as I have done all along) that Moir’s was not a pleasant article. And perhaps she was pandering to that specific readership – because that’s her job. But it was merely her expressing her view – because that’s her job. Just because some people disagree, well – that’s the nature of any contentious issue.

It’s a certain sort of someone who buys and reads the Daily Mail. My husband buys it on a Saturday, partly because they have rather a good magazine which is handy for the telly times. I do read the paper, and raise my eyebrows when I read something that jars. What I don’t do is declare utter outrage, partly because I know which part of the population the Mail’s readers consist of. I’m married to one of them, although he only sins on Saturdays…

Okay, so perhaps two pounds, more than two pence!
.-= Helga Hansen´s last blog ..Brain Drain =-.

He shouldn’t be so irresponsible when using Twitter for politics. After all he suggested people go to the PCC, a body with a code of conduct. And so then he should apply the same sort of code of responsibility to himself. Why tell people to go and get outraged, that’s the curious thing. He wanted them to be exposed to and outraged by her, a gossip columnist who wrote a similarly poison pen piece on Jade Goody. You don’t have to go and be insulted by something, you can freely choose to ignore it, turn the page or if you feel strongly, write a counter view. To encourage people to go and become outraged, complain and then silence someone is irresponsible and vaguely fascistic behaviour. The result was a massive attack on freedom of opinion, the results of which have far greater ramifications than some puerile gossip about a celebrity the likes of which we read daily. As a Pole immigrant to this country I cannot say I was overly impressed with his attempt to tie an apology for his spiteful, grotesque remarks about Poles and catholics into a step-back on the Moir ‘debacle’. It wasn’t a particularly sincere piece.

I don’t think I am being oversensitive, I think she is being a nasty horrid woman who obviously has alot of negative pent up energy. If you read some of her other “articles” you will see a trend of hate and negativity that beggars belief. She is a sensationalist of the worst kind and I hope they think twice about printing her vile opinions in future. She doesn’t deserve a readership.

The reason why I class her article as hate speech has more to do with the people’s comments who read it. Those who were in favour of the article clearly understood what she was getting at. They agreed with her and took it one step further. Inciting hatred and stereotypes, no matter how subtle that may be, is hate speech in my book.

Imagine the scenario : A white man dies in similar circumstances and he is married to a black lady. This happens just after Apartheid laws are scrapped and interracial marriages are allowed. Some journalist then writes a scathing articles alluding to the seedy downside of these marriages and how they are more than likely the cause for this death. There must be MORE than meets the eye because this is a dark lifestyle.

Racism? No, definitely not ?
Hate speech? No, definitely not ?

I don’t see the difference between my scenario above and the Gately / Jan Moir debate.
I hope your child never grows up to be on the receiving end of such hate based on something entirely beyond his or her control.

that epically ill-judged piece of gutter journalism. Its malice, stupidity, incoherent illogicality and crass insensitivity have been superbly anatomised by many others

So you can obviously see why he wanted to raise his armies against it.
Was it distasteful? Yes, a little.
Was it hate speech? No, definitely not.
Did it (and she) deserve what it (and she) got? No. Probably not. It was a huge and unnecessary over-reaction, IMHO.

Emil > A kind of pseudoVoltaire…

Yes, I am following John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)