This just in from the Press Complaints Commission:
Commission’s decision in the case of
Two Complainants v The Observer / The Daily Telegraph
The complainants were concerned about a comment article which responded to criticism of another columnist on social networking sites. The article had first been published by The Observer. Following The Observer’s decision to remove the article from its website, it had been republished on the website of The Daily Telegraph. The Commission received over 800 complaints about the article, which it investigated in correspondence with two lead complainants, one for each newspaper.
The complainants considered that the article contained a number of prejudicial and pejorative references to transgender people in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. They also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that language used by the columnist was inaccurate as well as offensive, and, furthermore that the article misleadingly suggested that the term “cis-gendered” was insulting. Additionally, concerns had been raised that the repeated use of terms of offence had breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code.
The Commission first considered the complaints, framed under Clause 12, that the article had contained a number of remarks about transgender people that were pejorative and discriminatory. It noted that the Observer had accepted that these remarks were offensive, and that it had made the decision to remove the article on the basis that the language used fell outside the scope of what it considered reasonable; however, the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 because the article had not made reference to any specific individual. Clause 12 states that newspapers “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the Commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.
The Commission also considered the complaint under the terms of Clause 1, which states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. Complainants had suggested that the terms used in the article to refer to transgender people were inaccurate or misleading. Whilst the Commission acknowledged this concern, it was clear from the tone of the article that these terms were being used to express an opinion. Whilst many people had found this opinion deeply distasteful and upsetting, the columnist was entitled to express her views under the terms of Clause 1(iii), so long as the statements were clearly distinguished from fact. The same was true in relation to the columnist’s assertion that the term “cis-gendered” is offensive. Viewed in the context of the article as a whole, particularly in light of the fact that the article had been deliberately identified as a comment piece, this was clearly distinguishable as an expression of her opinion about the term rather than a statement of fact about how it is perceived more broadly. This did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, for the purposes of Clause 1(i), and neither was there any significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.
The Commission turned to consider those concerns raised under Clause 4, which states that “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach of the Code.
The Commission acknowledged that the complainants found much of the article offensive. Nonetheless, the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised. It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
Reference no’s 130403 / 130404
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Challenging Journeys (Phase 2) 
PCC have ruled on other groups in the past too,
Sadly the press is free to insult any GROUP it wants according to the PCC. Hence the Mail having articles about immigrants in general.
Richard Littlejohns generalised rants on any group he feels like targetting continue because he doesn’t pick on individuals.
But in those cases it’s not a full on assault on the group in question it’s generalised sniping and controlled tone (less control in LittleJohns case).
The worst part of the PCC response is that they are saying the article was ACCURATE. Apparently those insults and slurs are completely fine as the PCC thinks they are true.
So, so disappointed with this pointless response of theirs.
I am trans. I am pleased with the ruling. I want freedom of the Press. In this case the Observer took down the article because of social pressures. That is the way to deal with offensive articles, not by law.
Except, Clare, the Telegraph still has the article on its website and the PCC is not “law” – it’s the press’s own self-regulatory body – or non-regulatory standards ombudsman if you believe Lord Hunt.
Indeed. Though the wider debate this month has been about how to replace the PCC, and law is a possibility; and the tribunal hears quasi-legal argument on the quasi-legal Code of Practice.
Please do not obscure my main point. You quibble about my last word, and a disquisition on what law is, is not apposite here. Vile as Burchill’s article is- it is hate-speech- I want it to be restricted by social pressures, not by law or quasi-legal processes.
The article remains on the Telegraph website? The world is imperfect.
[…] Complaints Commission ruling exonerating the Burchill […]
Seriously did you expected anything other than backing their own, the PCC isnt there to look after anyone one’s or any groups interests, other than their own tabloid backers
[…] the PCC has finally announced its response to the 800 odd complaints made against Julie Burchill’s vile hate piece. It pretty much says that […]
[…] Belcher has an analysis of the judgement here, but the guts of it can be summarized in three simple […]
[…] I’ve arranged to meet the PCC on Monday afternoon. But I’m not hopeful of getting anywhere at all. Although they are concerned – they seem powerless to do anything about it. “Wringing their hands with a sense of woe” – that quote rings bells. Not that they particularly helped themselves with Wednesday’s ruling. […]
The decision is entirely consistent with the PCC code as currently written. If complainants want to be able to succeed in such complaints in future, then Clause 12 needs to be rewritten to state that newspapers:
“… must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s or group’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”
Clause 1 would need to be rewritten to include a statement of opinion as well as a statement of fact.
[…] less than 24 hours after the Press Complaints Commission’s refusal to follow up on the hundreds of complaints about Julie Burchill’s anti-trans tirade, it has not been a day […]