The
radio host, Jon Gaunt, who called a councillor a Nazi live on air has
lost a legal bid to challenge Ofcom's decision to uphold complaints against him.
Ofcom received 53 complaints over Gaunt's interview with Redbridge
councillor Michael Stark, which took place in November 2008. The pair
had been debating the council's decision to ban smokers from fostering
children when Gaunt called Stark a Nazi, a health Nazi and
an ignorant pig.
Gaunt apologised on-air following the exchange, but Talksport sacked
the presenter after its own investigation.
The TV censor Ofcom noted the apology, but in June 2009 upheld the
complaint under the rules regarding offensive material.
Gaunt's lawyers argued that Ofcom infringed Gaunt's right to free
speech under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
won the right to take the case to judicial review.
But at London's High Court, Sir Anthony May and Mr Justice Blair
dismissed the proceedings. May said Ofcom was justified in its
conclusion: The broadcast was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr
Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience.
The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the
broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification.
Gaunt was refused permission to appeal although he can renew his
application directly to the Court of Appeal. \
Human rights group Liberty, which intervened in the case because of
its wider importance to free speech, said Gaunt and his legal
team intended to challenge the ruling.
Comment:
Court should consider the underpinning law rather than Ofcom's code
16th July 2010. Based on contribution from IanG on the Melon Farmers Forum
Sir Anthony appears to be quoting Ofcom's Code when offering his
opinion. He's not applying or reading the law and assessing if Ofcom's
Code does what Ofcom are required to do by law.
Section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act 2003 requires Ofcom as part of
their Standards Objectives to ensure generally accepted standards are
applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate
protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services
of offensive and harmful material.
Clearly, the host/presenter/guest is not responsible for what is
broadcast by the licensee. The generally accepted standard means of
preventing offensive and harmful material leaving a broadcaster's aerial
during live transmissions is to employ a short delay such that an
operator can bleep or silence any offensive material so that it is not
included in their transmission and the the public are thus adequately
protected from exposure to it...that is as per the requirements of
section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act and Ofcom's Standards Objectives as
dictated by THE LAW.
As Ofcom's Code doesn't state what generally accepted standards are
to be applied to adequately protect the public from inclusion of
offensive and harmful material in programmes; and the Code fails to
specify what is to be considered offensive and harmful material; and
fining people after the fact or giving them a ticking off doesn't
prevent the inclusion of such material then, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM'S
FAULT for NOT ENSURING Talksport prevented the inclusion of Gaunt's
comments in their broadcast.
Just to illustrate: If the Comms Act required Ofcom to ensure
adequate protection against people being shot and then someone got
shot, who could and should be held accountable?
Surely, Sir Anthony cannot believe the intent of Parliament was to
allow Ofcom to prevent people expressing their thoughts and feelings on
air? Such a notion is an absolute violation of Freedom Of Expression.
Clearly, no matter how offensive 53 people found Gaunt's comments, his
right to state his opinion in any terms he so chooses is sacrosanct - as
is everyone's right to do the same.
Jon Gaunt needs to appeal on the grounds that Ofcom's Code doesn't do
what is required by law and request or force a Judicial Review of
Ofcom's pathetic excuse for a Code according to the letter of the law.
The High Court is not there to enforce Ofcom's unenacted Code. They're
there to uphold and enforce the LAW. 319(2)(F) certainly doesn't say
Ofcom are supposed to hang around waiting for someone to complain about
feeling offended and then fine the channel - but that's exactly the line
they've chosen to adopt.