Word Magazine apologises in open court - how long before the NME does the same?

Again I point out - we are months away from a celebrity demanding - and being granted - a short nominal cessation of publication from a publication deemed guilty of libel.

i.e. the News Of The World banned from one Sunday publication.

That's the way it will go; the only question is - which celebrity will do it?

I've always been in favour of that kind of judgement. Fines for the rich are a waste of time.

Similar with other areas, such as building. Our local council put a protection order on some trees so that the new building project wouldn't see them cut down. The firm cut them down anyway and just paid the fine and got on with their project. If they'd had their licence removed it would have sent a stronger message.

JC wrote:
I've always been in favour of that kind of judgement. Fines for the rich are a waste of time.

Similar with other areas, such as building. Our local council put a protection order on some trees so that the new building project wouldn't see them cut down. The firm cut them down anyway and just paid the fine and got on with their project. If they'd had their licence removed it would have sent a stronger message.

Revoking planning permission would be more effective a deterrent.

On the question of causing a newspaper to cease publication - can the Courts do this and if they can is that really a path we wish to tread? (Although the idea has a very strong appeal to me, I'm sure of the rightness of it in principle)

In court the QC would state that a punishment "in kind" is needed - that the damage to a human being cannot be assessed in cash and that cash loss has little impact on a publication, that by issuing an order not to publish for one day or two days or three days would inflict a similar pain on the publisher as the libel to the individual, that the claimant is happy to reject any cash reward in return for teaching publishers a lesson, thus being an unselfish and noble act, ... that Editors and Writers will only truly be dissuaded from knowingly printing lies if the punishment fits the crime and that an order to cease publication for a short time would not be permanent or terminal damage but would inflict a similar injury...

Bet someone does it soon.

I like the idea, it certainly makes sense.

My concern is if we get another Robert Maxwell who most certainly manipulated the libel laws or his own benefit.

Temporary closure is a great idea but, and this is one of my perennial beefs about the legal system, it is the one with the longest pockets who triumphs.

That and I'm not comfortable with the Courts ordering a publication to suspend operations. A bit too close to State censorship.

...although I really do like the idea.

I am certainly against state censorship and I believe in the freedom of the press. However, while that is a basic right in a democratic society, the press must have responsibilities. Surely the press have a responsibility not to destroy people's lives who have clearly done nothing wrong?

The tough bit is what punitive action should be taken if they clearly violate their responsibilities? Fines will be treated as "the cost of doing business".
I see the potential for a paper being "banned" for a few days and becoming folk heros...read it in The Currant Bun...The Bastards Closed us Down, blah, blah.

Big End wrote:
<snip>
I see the potential for a paper being "banned" for a few days and becoming folk heros...read it in The Currant Bun...The Bastards Closed us Down, blah, blah.
Yes.

Private Eye survive on the image of being perpetually sued well enough.

It would be a poor editor who didn't turn it into a positive.

True but the reality is - a day without publication would give a hefty chunk of your readers the chance to break the habit - and try another paper.

I think the bad would far outweigh the good, however Editors spun it.

JK2006 wrote:
True but the reality is - a day without publication would give a hefty chunk of your readers the chance to break the habit - and try another paper.

I think the bad would far outweigh the good, however Editors spun it.
I am swayed

"WE WOZ GAGGED" is useful the first time but the novelty would wear off.

I love the idea but I'm still reluctant about the principle of the Courts closing down the media.

Another interesting side issue here is that NME and Word are both the kind of magazines that basically need and adore Morrissey. God knows why they have fell out with him so bad. Who will it hurt more? I can't imagine he'll make up with the NME a second time...