nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney for 'supporting same-sex marriage' on air

loh_oro

What is wrong with people how can a complaint like that be upheld, ridiculous!

I cant post links yet but its an article on the indo

Find more posts tagged with

i'm so angry

liberal outrage

Quick Links

Comments

hatrickpatrick

F*ck the BAI, and indeed f*ck censorship in general. We'd be better off without them. They do well in cases involving obvious scams like Play TV on TV3 a few years ago, but they shouldn't take moral stances regarding "offensive" content at all IMO. The right not to be offended does not trump the right to freedom of speech.

takamichinoku

loh_oro wrote: »

What is wrong with people how can a complaint like that be upheld, ridiculous!

I cant post links yet but its an article on the indo

Link

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

efb

Iona et al will be all over RTE like a rash if anyone supports marriage equality unchallenged

The Moldy Gowl

Today I was buying a coffee but I didnt want a latte, I wanted an espresso.

The lad in front ordered a latte. I compliained on the grounds I didn't like lattes.

The lad didn't get his latte

Karl Stein

Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney

The complainant, Donal O’Sullivan – Latchford from the Family and Media Association, stated that the show’s presenter Derek Mooney had made “several statements implicitly and explicitly supporting same-sex marriage” during a discussion on the number of civil partnerships in Ireland.

The Family and Media Association

MISSION STATEMENT

(1) To promote greater understanding and appreciation of Christian values in the media with particular reference to Catholic teachings.

(2) To promote public understanding of the functioning and power of the media and, in so doing, foster high standards of honesty, decency, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and truthfulness.

Roll on the referendum.

Piliger

The broadcasting standards watchdog is clearly completely out of control. This is becoming a circus of censorship and bigotry.

catallus

That's what happens with these "independent" oversight quangos, their lust for power and control ends up with this sort of nonsensical censorship.

Hitchens

gets popcorn

Links234

What a complete and utter farce, I mean seriously... I should lodge a complaint that they don't have a message praising our glorious lord Lucifer alongside the Angelus, you know, for balance

GLaDOS

Not surprised in the slightest

Pawwed Rig

takamichinoku wrote: »

Link

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

It means the complaint was deemed valid and Mooney was in the wrong

GLaDOS

Links234 wrote: »

a message praising our glorious lord Lucifer alongside the Angelus, you know, for balance

I can imagine this before the 6.1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mbxe33BYW8

marienbad

How is this a big deal. it is not preventing anything being said ,just saying in an issue of current public debate the opposition viewpoint must be heard.

Can't see the fuss and I am on the for side.

ScumLord

(2) To promote public understanding of the functioning and power of the media and, in so doing, foster high standards of honesty, decency, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and truthfulness.

What a load of delusional bollox.

So a person didn't make a complaint, a media whoring Christian propaganda group made a complaint about people discussing things that goes against their dogma.

eviltwin

It wasn't a debate on ssm, it was just a guy who had been through a civil partnership talking about it, seems like a logical question to ask him if he would upgrade to marriage if ssm is made legal. On that basis I find the ruling quite odd. Its so stupid, can we not have an interview with anyone who has a point of view without now having to counter balance that with someone who is of a different opinion.

LeinsterDub

So will creationist and holocaust deniers be allow to use the same argument?

nc6000

This is an absolutely ridiculous decision.

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

What a load of delusional bollox.

So a person didn't make a complaint, a media whoring Christian propaganda group made a complaint about people discussing things that goes against their dogma.

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

Kermit.de.frog

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

krudler

marienbad wrote: »

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

But it wasn't a debate, so why would an opposing voice be needed?

ScumLord

marienbad wrote: »

No they complained the opposing viewpoint wasn't facilitated .

Why should it be, is every conversation on radio to be preplanned and censored? Radio hosts shouldn't have to check in with religious media groups before they can talk to a gay person.

I don't think they'd appreciate an atheist being on call every time god get's mentioned on the radio.

marienbad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So will creationist and holocaust deniers be allow to use the same argument?

Not the same issue - those issues at least the holocaust one - is an established fact. Their is no contrary view . The judgement a few years ago in London on Irving vs Lipstadt makes that quite clear.

On creationism -let rant away , cuts no ice on this side of the ocean.

Hopefully after the referendum gay marriage will be a settled issue and we will see the end of this ****e.

hfallada

Would BAI uphold a complaint on arguing for equal rights for minorities on the ground you must hear the opposing sides views? Giving homosexual people the same rights as heterosexual people is a human rights issue and not a bs moral issue like some people are making out.

There is very little scientific reason for opposing same sex marriage. Why should some nut job church be allowed to comment on someone else's rights?

efb

Isn't it ironic that they demand equal time to prevent equal rights???

catallus

hfallada wrote: »

Why should some nut job church be allowed to comment on someone else's rights?

It is called free speech.

The Rabbit

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

You know what kind of people.

The backwards and God fearing kind.

shruikan2553

If someone talks about getting married to a person of the opposite sex do they have to have someone there against it?

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

Why should it be, is every conversation on radio to be preplanned and censored? Radio hosts shouldn't have to check in with religious media groups before they can talk to a gay person.

I don't think they'd appreciate an atheist being on call every time god get's mentioned on the radio.

I didn't hear the programme and have only read the summary of the decision so correct me if I am wrong - but there were three people on the segment and all in favour , imho that is what made the difference. If it was just one guy giving his life experience fair enough but it went beyond that.

And the view was taken that it is current topic soon to be voted on and in effect the campaigns have already started .

I think the McKenna Judgement even though unrelated affects all these decisions.

On the atheist question , yeah you are right and we should lodge more complaints' going into the future now that we have a precedent.

ScumLord

marienbad wrote: »

I didn't hear the programme and have only read the summary of the decision so correct me if I am wrong - but there were three people on the segment and all in favour , imho that is what made the difference. If it was just one guy giving his life experience fair enough but it went beyond that.

So basically they're saying gays can't discuss their rights without religious oversight?

Pappacharlie

I have no problem with same sex marriage but Derek Mooney is an arrogant little ??it. He is an opinionated pompous little ??ick.
On a recent show he said he went to his sisters friends wedding and did not give any gift to the people who invited him. He then went on to complain about someone who did not pay their way on a night out. Could he not see the relationship between the two situations. He makes me sick!!!

What a mean tosser????