Why it's libelous to say someone is gay

Is it libelous to print that someone is gay, when they're not? It shouldn't be, but it is.

In Ireland, we imagine that we're enlightened. Being gay is okay. Ethnic minorities are to be respected. But this veil of tolerance falls sharply the minute an Irish person is associated with one of these tags.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Irish libel law.

Consider the following test. Imagine that your name is Sean or Mary Mahony. Imagine that one of these statements appears in a mass-selling Irish daily newspaper. Which ones would you 'consult your solicitor' about?

1. "Sean Mahony is gay."

2. "Sean Mahony comes from a traveller background. Both of his parents were travellers."

3. "Sean Mahony is of mixed race. His father is Irish, his mother is black."

4. "Mary Mahony is a lesbian."

7. "Mary Mahony lost her virginity to a Nigerian."

5. "Sean Mahony is a Muslim."

6. "Sean Mahony is Jewish."

As journalists, we have to be careful about facts and the reputations of people we write about. But it goes beyond that. We also have to be careful not to offend against the bigotry and intolerance of the wider public. This is not just for pragmatic commercial reasons, but for legal ones, too. Being gay may be okay, but if you write that someone is gay, and they're not, all of a sudden it's a horrific, scandalous, deeply damaging attack on their reputation. Yes, yes, we're all enlightened -- but don't you dare call me gay, or I'll sue the hell out of you.

Comments

[twitter.com/michael_hanley]

Adrian,
The core issue here is that libel is in Ireland is concerned with putative damage to reputation, rather than focusing on journalists (or anyone else) publishing an untrue or false statement. If I remember correctly it is a statement "which tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the eyes of right-thinking people."

But how do you define a "right-thinking" person? Am I? Are you? A dodgy 'Del Boy' type? A discredited politician? We are all equal in they eyes of the law, apparently.

In my view it's fair enough that if a journalist attributes an untrue characteristic or action to an individual that they (the libelled, for want of a better word) have a right to recourse. The problem is if you as an author wish to publish something which you know to be true, but a person or organisation disputes.

For example, I'm posting a blog article tomorrow where I discuss a certain Learning Management System vendor's assertion that (in the face of the evidence) their solution's functionality complies (and this is the key term) with the SCORM "standard." I am being *incredibly* circumspect about how I communicate the information. This is despite the fact I am correct (SCORM is a specification, not a standard), and that Article 10 (1) of the European Human Rights Convention provides that: "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."

I guess it is only through discourse in the public domain that we can define the parameters of our freedom to speak.

Michael Hanley
--

[Simon McGarr]

Source?

[Michael Flanagan]

Michael, I think the point here is not whether damage to reputation by the publishing of incorrect information should be punishable, but what should be considered damaging in the first place.

As per your example - incorrectly stating that a piece of software/service fails to meet standers and is a lesser product than claimed, is inherently damaging to the reputation of the service and the service provider.

However, in our forward thinking society their is no lack of respect, or loss of reputation, bestowed upon homosexuals. In theory. But it's still considered libelous to mistakingly claim that someone is.

[Adrian]

Well put, Michael.