[All links open in a new window]

I’ve recently been trying to catch up on the hullabaloo surrounding the publication by The Mayo Echo of articles purporting to describe the activities of “perverts” near a lake in Castlebar. In a nutshell, the facts seem to be as follows, and it’s pertinent to consider the arguments raised concerning free speech and concerning incitement to hatred.

In the original article (reproduced here), the author – Mr Tony Geraghty, equates “gay men” with “perverts”, per the opening paragraph, and continues by using, among other things, the phrases “gay perverts” and “drooling perverts are getting off whilst watching their children”. (The original is no longer available on the website of The Mayo Echo, the webisite having since been updated to carry the latest edition of the freesheet.) A follow-up editorial of 4th June 2008 in The Mayo Echo defends the author’s article.

A website which appears to be connected in some way to Castlebar’s local authorities, Castlebar.ie, has been shut down as a result of heated discussion of the Echo’s article.

From reading subsequent online commentary concerning Geraghty’s publication, it would appear that photographs accompanying the article clearly identify cars and car registration plates.

In correspondence from The Mayo Echo to Castlebar.ie, threatening legal action if offending comments were not removed, the Geraghty wrote:

“I am completely in favour of the principle of a free press, freedom of expression, and the free exchange of ideas, but with such rights come responsibilities, both legal and moral.”

(Source)

This is where things become interesting. Geraghty alleged that “some of the comments are completely unacceptable, untrue, and completely defamatory to myself, and to the Mayo Echo publication”. It is not now possible to test the veracity of his allegation. Nonetheless, Geraghty has – rightly or wrongly – invoked his statutory and Constitutional right to preserve his good name in order to force Castlebar.ie to cease operations.

I wonder, however, whether Geraghty considered his own responsibilities, both legal and moral, as someone in the priviledged position of being able to reach a wide readership across the Connaught province. His website cites a circulation of 24,100 copies every week.

In legal terms, at least, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute. In human rights law this is an established legal principle. The primary source of European human rights jurisprudence, the European Convention of Human Rights [PDF], makes this very clear in the basic text:

Article 10 –- Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Subsequent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights [link] – whose purpose is to interpret the Convention – have re-stated this principle. The Convention, like most modern human rights principles and treaties, were set down in the wake of the Second World War and the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime.

It is for good reason, then, that there are limits to the right to freedom of expression. Ireland has legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred [link]. It states that words, publications or broadcasts shall be regarded as a criminal offense if they are “threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred”. “Hatred” is defined as hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Moreover, referring to individuals as “perverts” and making allusions to paedophilia, while identifying them clearly by publication of their car registration details, would certainly leave Mr Geraghty open to the same,if not stronger, legal threats he made against the operators of Castlebar.ie [link]

Perhaps Geraghty, in his self-appointed role as police-man of Castlebar should bear all of this in mind when next he goes to the printer’s.

www.mayoecho.com
www.castlebar.ie

No related posts.