Decision of the Complaints Committee – 05779-21 Dyess v
The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Beau Dyess complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3
(Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Gay website 'claimed anti-trans feminists
groom and abuse'”, published on 23 May 2021.
2. The article reported on a forthcoming defamation trial at
the Royal Courts of Justice. It explained that “The case concerns an interview
published in Pink News last May with an American writer, [complainant’s former
name], who at the time was a lesbian woman. Dyess claimed that the
‘gender-critical’ feminist movement was a cult that groomed and abused.” After
further describing the points at issue in the proceedings, the article stated
that “Dyess, who is now known as Beau Dyess and identifies as a trans man, did
not respond to approaches for comment.”
3. The complainant said that the article provided an
inaccurate and misleading report of their identity in breach of Clause 1, and
that the publication of this information constituted a form of harassment in
breach of Clause 3. The complainant said the article ‘deadnamed’ them and
misidentified their gender and sexual orientation. The complainant explained
that they were “exploring” their gender identity “as a man who’s trans” who
“also still [identified] as a lesbian”. Furthermore, the complainant said that
contrary to the claim made within the article they had not been approached for
comment by the newspaper.
4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’
Code. With regard to the complainant’s first point of concern about the use of
their former name, the newspaper said that the article was a report of an
ongoing legal case. The complainant was identified in the proceedings by their
former name, and as such its own article necessarily referred to them by that
name, and repeated aspects of the disputed article – such as the complainant’s
gender identity and sexual orientation – that were relevant to the proceedings.
It added that the complainant had co-operated with the 2020 article and it had
no reason to question its accuracy or sensitivity. The newspaper provided
copies of the Pink News article and submissions to the court in order to
demonstrate this. The newspaper said it had taken additional steps to ensure
that the article accurately reflected the complainant’s current identity by
viewing the complainant’s Twitter profile; the name associated with the Twitter
account was “Beau Dyess” and the Twitter profile for the account stated
“he/him”. The newspaper also rejected the complainant’s allegation that it had
not approached them for comment. The newspaper said its reporter had approached
the complainant for comment on three separate occasions prior to publication,
each through a different medium; twice directly through social media (Twitter
and LinkedIn) and once indirectly via staff at Pink News, which had published
the 2020 article.
5. Following a review of their social media accounts, the
complainant accepted that the reporter had attempted to contact them for
comment. However, the complainant did not accept that these efforts were
sufficient and expressed concern at the manner of the reporter’s approach. The
complainant said that their LinkedIn account had been “defunct” for a number of
years and that they only received notifications on Twitter when their
“followers” contacted them. The complainant added that they were no longer in
communication with Pink News. The complainant expressed a further concern that
the reporter’s message via LinkedIn had been addressed to their former
name. They said this approach and the
general approach taken by the editorial team since was offensive and constituted
harassment, in breach of Clause 3 and Clause 4.
6. The newspaper did not accept a breach of either of these
additional clauses. It suggested that the complainant’s position that the
newspaper made insufficient attempts to contact them and that the reporter
harassed them were contradictory. It added that the complainant’s position that
the publication should have been aware of the settings of their social media
accounts, and the status of their relationship with the other publication, was “untenable”.
Nor did the newspaper accept that the approach made by the reporter had been
offensive or unprofessional, as suggested by the complainant. It noted that the
LinkedIn account to which the message had been sent used the complainant’s
former name; the reporter had therefore addressed the message using that name.
7. Whilst the newspaper did not accept a breach of the
Editors’ Code, the publication offered to publish a statement by the
complainant regarding their gender identity in order to resolve their
complaint.
8. The complainant said that only a retraction, apology and
the publication of a statement would be sufficient to resolve their complaint.
The complainant provided wording that outlined their position regarding the
article under complaint, linked to their own writing on the gender critical
movement and made allegations about another individual.
9. The newspaper did not consider the wording of the
proposed statement appropriate as it argued that this went beyond the scope of
the specific points under complaint. As such, the matter was passed to the
Committee for adjudication.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment
or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must
ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care
not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
Findings of the Committee
10. The complainant was concerned that the article had
referred to them by their previous name. The Committee recognised the
complainant’s concerns; however, it had regard to the context of the article.
It was reporting on a defamation case brought against Pink News over a
published interview with the complainant. The article reflected the name
contained in the Pink News article and in the associated legal documents. It
made clear that the complainant no longer used this name. Taken in this
context, the reference to the complainant’s former name was not inaccurate and
did not breach Clause 1.
11. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns
regarding the article’s report of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
The article had reported that “at the time” of the Pink News’ article the
complainant “was a lesbian woman” and stated they now “identif[y] as a trans
man”. In considering the care taken by
the newspaper, the Committee again had regard to the context of the article; it
reflected the information contained in the headline and text of the Pink News
article and in the associated legal documents. In addition, the Committee noted
that the publication had attempted to clarify the complainant’s sexual
orientation and gender identity by reflecting the information included on their
publicly available social media profile and seeking their comments prior to
publication, albeit the attempts it had made had been unsuccessful. On this basis, the Committee concluded that
there was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article in breach of
Clause 1 (i).
12. Notwithstanding this, the Committee recognised that the
complainant was best placed to comment on whether the article had misidentified
their gender and sexual orientation. On this basis, the Committee considered
that the complainant was entitled to an opportunity to reply to any
inaccuracies on this point. It noted
that the publication had offered to publish a statement from the complainant
addressing their gender and sexual orientation. In response to this offer, the
complainant had proposed wording that outlined their position regarding the
article and linked to their own article on the gender critical movement. It was
a matter of regret that the parties had not been able to agree a form of words
for the complainant’s reply, but the Committee considered that a fair
opportunity to reply had been offered by the newspaper under the terms of
Clause 1, and as such no further action was required. There was no breach of
Clause 1 (iii).
13. The complainant stated that the claim that they had “not
responded to approaches for comment” was inaccurate, as they had received no
such contact from the publication. The publication had provided evidence that
it had attempted to contact the complainant through three channels: LinkedIn;
Twitter; and via the publication who had published the article that was at the
centre of the proceedings. In light of these efforts, the Committee could not
agree that it was misleading to say that the publication had approached the
complainant for comment, or that they had not responded. As such, there was no
breach of Clause 1.
14. In addition, the complainant said the publication of
this information was insensitive in breach of Clause 4. The terms of Clause 4
make clear that its provisions “should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings”. As previously noted, most of the information in the report was
included within a report on the submissions to the High Court for a forthcoming
defamation case concerning an article published in 2020 and thereby already
within the public domain; additional details, including the information about
the complainant’s current gender identity, came from the complainant’s social
media accounts, which they had chosen to place in the public domain. As such,
the Committee did not consider that the publication of this information
represented an intrusion into the complainant’s personal grief or shock. There
was no breach of Clause 4.
15. Furthermore, the complainant said that the publication
of the article constituted harassment as well as the communication they had
received from the reporter. In this instance, the reporter had contacted the
complainant for comment prior to publication through several channels. The
direct message the reporter had sent to the complainant via LinkedIn was simply
an enquiry as to whether they had a response to the filling of the defamation
case that related to them; the message reflected the name included within these
court documents, which was also used in the complainant’s LinkedIn profile. The
complainant had not responded to this communication and appeared unaware of the
three approaches made by the reporter prior to the IPSO’s investigation. Whilst
the Committee appreciated that the reporter’s use of the complainant’s former
name had caused them distress, it did not consider that the reporter had
engaged in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit, given the nature of
the communication. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
17. N/A
Date complaint received: 25/05/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/09/2021
Back to ruling listing