Katie Hopkins says Sun banned her from writing about Madeleine McCann!

[John]

Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins says Sun banned her from writing about Madeleine McCann.



By Dominic Ponsford
10 June 2016

Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins has claimed she was banned from writing about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann when she had a column in The Sun newspaper.



And she has praised the Mail for being “brave” enough to let her tackle difficult subjects.

Speaking on the latest Media Focus podcast she talked about the February 2016 Mail Online column in which she said Madeleine’s parents were partly to blame for her disappearance.

On being one of Mail Online’s two paid columnists, along with Piers Morgan, she said: “The audience we pull on some of the stuff we write is off the scale. They are brave.

“The Madeleine McCann article I wrote, nobody would touch that. In other papers I’ve worked for I was never allowed to write about that topic.

“The Mail will back you and they will provide the legal support that will allow you that freedom. Everyone else is terrified of compliance, terrified of legal costs and terrified of their own shadow.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-online-columnist-katie-hopkins-says-sun-banned-her-from-writing-about-madeleine-mccann/

54

[Brietta]

She has found the magic formula for keeping her name in the limelight and the salary cheques arriving in the bank. 

Must be at least one wannabe out there who is kicking herself for running around with a video camera having doors slammed in her face as she watches the Hopkins masterclass in operation.

[G-Unit]

Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.

The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.

If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.

[Mr Gray]

Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.

The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.

If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.

the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.

[xtina]

the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.

they paid thousands an thousands on lawyers

.they put themselves in the arena ...and have to accept what comes with it that....

we don't

[Alfie]

Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.

The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.

If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.

Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs.  What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"

[stephen25000]

Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs.  What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"

Out comes the standard cliche .....................

' and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?" '

Katie Hopkins was criticizing the behaviour of the mccanns which placed Madeleine and her siblings in jeopardy in the first place.

Which part of that do you not understand ?

[G-Unit]

the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.

Katie Hopkins wrote a story about the McCanns in The Mail online which wasn't libelous, but The Sun refused to let her write on the subject at all. It couldn't have been fear of the laws of libel, so there must have been another reason for The Sun's decision.

Thank you for your opinion on what is or is not libel in various countries, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread which is about a certain newspaper allegedly stifling freedom of speech.

As Katie Hopkins has shown, it's possible to write from an alternative stance on the case without either libeling the McCanns or calling them liars. Why you assume any story not supporting their position automatically involves calling them liars is not clear, sorry.

In the lower court judgement only two fifths of their claim against Amaral was granted. That's an example of a story that wouldn't be libelous, but I don't recall it being reported.

[Lace]

Out comes the standard cliche .....................

' and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?" '

Katie Hopkins was criticizing the behaviour of the mccanns which placed Madeleine and her siblings in jeopardy in the first place.

Which part of that do you not understand ?

All Katie Hopkins did was blow on  the ashes of the 'they left them alone'  to cause a flame and then an inferno,  against the McCann's,  because she knew that the readers held the belief that the McCann's were wrong to leave the children,  and they were,  it was the first thing I said when I heard about the case,  why did they leave the children alone.

The McCann's however came out and openly said they were wrong,  that they can never forgive themselves,  and I think losing a child is enough of a punishment,  it's not something that arresting them and throwing them in jail is going to correct is it?   They are tortured day in day out and no amount of backlash from the public is going to change that all it does is cause more pain for which I can see no need for,  it's like knocking at their door and saying 'it's your fault'  every day,  why would you want to do that,  only someone with a sadistic mentally would.

What Katie Hopkins did was to get HERSELF in the papers,  to get HERSELF noticed,  she doesn't care about what misery she causes anyone she is selfish and money orientated.

[G-Unit]

Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs.  What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"

I agree. Although the law upholds freedom of speech it's never really existed until the internet emerged. Truthful well researched articles would be a refreshing change.

I don't think we're discussing 'Justice for Maddie'  on this thread, we're discussing possible self-censorship by The Sun.

[Mr Gray]

Katie Hopkins wrote a story about the McCanns in The Mail online which wasn't libelous, but The Sun refused to let her write on the subject at all. It couldn't have been fear of the laws of libel, so there must have been another reason for The Sun's decision.

Thank you for your opinion on what is or is not libel in various countries, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread which is about a certain newspaper allegedly stifling freedom of speech.

As Katie Hopkins has shown, it's possible to write from an alternative stance on the case without either libeling the McCanns or calling them liars. Why you assume any story not supporting their position automatically involves calling them liars is not clear, sorry.

In the lower court judgement only two fifths of their claim against Amaral was granted. That's an example of a story that wouldn't be libelous, but I don't recall it being reported.

no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers

[G-Unit]

no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers

What reason can you give for The Sun allegedly banning Katie Hopkins from giving her opinion? Can they not afford the same legal advice as The Mail, do you think?

[Lace]

What reason can you give for The Sun allegedly banning Katie Hopkins from giving her opinion? Can they not afford the same legal advice as The Mail, do you think?

The Sun has said they support the McCann's,  so why would they want someone like Katie Hopkins writing a bitchy column?

[stephen25000]

no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers

What did the recent judgement in Portugal say dave ?

[xtina]

The Sun has said they support the McCann's,  so why would they want someone like Katie Hopkins writing a bitchy column?

oh how naive.... .we are talking about the sun here ....