Word mag apologised to Morrissey

[Paulc]

Paul, it certainly wasn't a case of Word "choosing to reiterate some of the NMEs comments." Quantick's review of the Greatest Hits album stood or fell (in this case) on its own merits. Word's piece certainly wasn't headline-grabbing in the way the NME's was. My point is that in most countries Quantick's views would have been construed in legal terms as "fair comment." I'd encourage anyone to actually read the review itself. The libel law in this country is a blunt instrument and is overly favourable to the plaintiff. By all means disagree with me, but I don't think Morrissey should have sued Word for libel.

yeah i hear what you are saying but i most certainly did read it at the time and was very disappointed that an album review descended into allegations of racism - its libellous to do that and i dont see what option Morrissey had except to sue. The alternative is to accept it which is just crazy!

 

[Danny_]

Posted on the main page. An interesting legal perspective on why Moz got his apology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/04/medialaw.pressandpublishing

 

[Worm]

My point is that in most countries Quantick's views would have been construed in legal terms as "fair comment." I'd encourage anyone to actually read the review itself. The libel law in this country is a blunt instrument and is overly favourable to the plaintiff. By all means disagree with me, but I don't think Morrissey should have sued Word for libel.

Agree with both your posts so far.

The NME deserved a lawsuit. As silly as Quantick's attack was, Word did not. I can't see how this second lawsuit is anything but a blow to freedom of speech.

 

[Danny_]

If you repeat a libel then you are just as much responsible as the publication that originated it. That's why the Word was sued. Quantick could have been as vicious as he wanted and got away with it but the fact that he repeated stuff from the NME article, which was already subject to legal proceedings, was really idiotic on his part and I'm surprised the Word agreed to publish it.

If he wanted to do the "Morrissey is a racist" angle, all he had to do is trot out all the usual arguments that journalists had for years before the NME interview had happened.

 

[Worm]

If you repeat a libel then you are just as much responsible as the publication that originated it. That's why the Word was sued. Quantick could have been as vicious as he wanted and got away with it but the fact that he repeated stuff from the NME article, which was already subject to legal proceedings, was really idiotic on his part and I'm surprised the Word agreed to publish it.

If he wanted to do the "Morrissey is a racist" angle, all he had to do is trot out all the usual arguments that journalists had for years before the NME interview had happened.

I've just re-read the article. He did drag up all the usual arguments journalists had been saying for years. As far as I can tell, the only points he mentioned that were taken from the NME article were:

1. "opining about a country he only really knows from a Knightsbridge hotel window"

2. "Never mind that as the child of an immigrant parent he really should know better than to attack immigration"

3. "paying lip service to anti-racism while talking like an old Tory immigration spokesman"

These comments are ignorant and mean-spirited, yes, but I don't believe they were worth a lawsuit. I'll grant that #2 is a defamatory repetition of one of the NME article's lies-- Morrissey "attacked" immigration policy, not immigration per se-- but again I think you have to ask if these things are so egregious that it's worth going after a magazine like Word in the courts.

After this, editors are not going to review copy and say, "Well, if we switched this word and substituted this one for that one, we could make this pass legal muster". No. Editors are going to go the other direction completely and either kill whole sections of an article or perhaps just dump the article altogether. Cases like this will sanitize writing in ways we won't even suspect.

More than that, once again Morrissey leaves us with the question of why one of the greatest songwriters in history needs to resort to a lawsuit to protect his character.

 

[mozmic_dancer]

Well, I bought the magazine and read other writer's music reviews and I didn't see anyone else include their crackpot commentary in their assessment of an album. Why the hell did Word allow Morrissey to be singled out?

As a reader, I'm taking into consideration the opinion of a writer as to whether I should hear an artist's latest work. Had Quantick just done that, it would have been fine; but he gets into this portrayal of Morrissey of someone who's this, that, and whatever and I'm thinking OK, but where is the album review?

I don't understand this magazine. Do they like music and musicians at all or does this publication have some sort of wacky purpose?

 

[Danny_]

I've just re-read the article. He did drag up all the usual arguments journalists had been saying for years. As far as I can tell, the only points he mentioned that were taken from the NME article were:

1. "opining about a country he only really knows from a Knightsbridge hotel window"

2. "Never mind that as the child of an immigrant parent he really should know better than to attack immigration"

3. "paying lip service to anti-racism while talking like an old Tory immigration spokesman"

These comments are ignorant and mean-spirited, yes, but I don't believe they were worth a lawsuit. I'll grant that #2 is a defamatory repetition of one of the NME article's lies-- Morrissey "attacked" immigration policy, not immigration per se-- but again I think you have to ask if these things are so egregious that it's worth going after a magazine like Word in the courts.

After this, editors are not going to review copy and say, "Well, if we switched this word and substituted this one for that one, we could make this pass legal muster". No. Editors are going to go the other direction completely and either kill whole sections of an article or perhaps just dump the article altogether. Cases like this will sanitize writing in ways we won't even suspect.

More than that, once again Morrissey leaves us with the question of why one of the greatest songwriters in history needs to resort to a lawsuit to protect his character.

Read the assessment in the Guardian. It's not about how strong or sanitised the article is. It's about repeating a libel. And it doesn't matter how many libels he repeated, one will do. Word were just careless.

And what do you mean, "once again"? This is the first time Morrissey has ever sued for libel. You talk as though he was just complaining about a bad review. It's clear in the statements made, whether Quantick liked the album or likes Morrissey was never part of the issue.

How do you suggest he protects his character when accused of being a racist? Just ignore it? That hasn't done him too much good in the past has it? Seems to me it's just given the go-ahead for people like Quantick to make as many insinuations as they want.

 

[Worm]

Read the assessment in the Guardian. It's not about how strong or sanitised the article is. It's about repeating a libel. And it doesn't matter how many libels he repeated, one will do. Word were just careless.

I read the Guardian article. I don't think Quantick simply "repeated a libel". Clearly he had read Jonze's hatchet job and drew conclusions from it, but did he really repeat anything that constitutes libel? Possibly-- as I said above, the bit on "attacking immigration" draws out one of the NME's errors. Was it worth going to court over, though? Will it be worth it when editors of many publications, not just music rags, tell their writers to "tone it down" in their articles for fear of lawsuits?

And what do you mean, "once again"? This is the first time Morrissey has ever sued for libel. You talk as though he was just complaining about a bad review. It's clear in the statements made, whether Quantick liked the album or likes Morrissey was never part of the issue.

This is not his first lawsuit.

How do you suggest he protects his character when accused of being a racist? Just ignore it? That hasn't done him too much good in the past has it? Seems to me it's just given the go-ahead for people like Quantick to make as many insinuations as they want.

He is one of the greatest songwriters ever. He has powers of expression most of us could never even dream of, let alone possess, and on top of that he has a huge platform from which to speak. Why a lawsuit? Isn't not being a racist fairly easy to prove (even without resorting to lame outbursts of political correctness like many other artists have done over the years)? Who are these mental midgets to Morrissey? What are these dumb, petty accusations to Morrissey? They're nothing. They could be flicked away like the silly little insects they are and he wouldn't break a sweat doing it. But in walk the lawyers, nevertheless.

 

[Danny_]

No, it's not easy to prove you are not a racist. Once you are accused of it, it's probably one of the few things it is virtually impossible to disprove. That's because it's a thought crime, and also because none of us are entirely free of some kind of racial prejudice or ignorance.

So Morrissey can cite his favourite black artists, he can sign anti-racist petitions, he can make anti-racist statements, he can even have anti-racist organisations at his gigs, but there will always be some people (like Quantick) who will accuse him of just doing it for show and really being a racist underneath.

 

[Danny_]

This is not his first lawsuit.

Can you tell me who he has sued before, because I must have missed it.

 

[Worm]

Can you tell me who he has sued before, because I must have missed it.

Heh. Okay. You win. Let me rephrase. This is not the first time he has sought redress in the court system.

 

[Worm]

No, it's not easy to prove you are not a racist. Once you are accused of it, it's probably one of the few things it is virtually impossible to disprove. That's because it's a thought crime, and also because none of us are entirely free of some kind of racial prejudice or ignorance.

So Morrissey can cite his favourite black artists, he can sign anti-racist petitions, he can make anti-racist statements, he can even have anti-racist organisations at his gigs, but there will always be some people (like Quantick) who will accuse him of just doing it for show and really being a racist underneath.

A completely valid point you've made in relation to 99.9% of the world's population. Shouldn't the gifted Morrissey, who has made an incredible career out of saying the unsayable, be able to find words to convince everyone-- not just his fans-- that he's not racist? In song, in interview, in a short article for a paper, or even just an email sent to Julia's site? In my view he's essentially done that already, but he could easily do a little more and be done with the whole issue.

And if you concede that petitions, anti-racist booths at his gigs, and listing favorite non-white artists can all be interpreted as "lip service" by some, don't you think a lawsuit is the ultimate way of hiding behind a pro forma public denial?

 

[Kilt Uncle]

Basil would call him Mr Steven wouldn't he?

Out of respect for Morrissey, i'm sure it would be Mr Morrissey.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one!..

 

[sarahT]

Out of respect for Morrissey, i'm sure it would be Mr Morrissey.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one!..

On reflection you are right he would call him Mr Morrissey.
I'd love to see Mozzer talking to Basil and grabbing his nose and stuff if he got too cheeky but I don't suppose I ever will.

 

[Kilt Uncle]

On reflection you are right he would call him Mr Morrissey.
I'd love to see Mozzer talking to Basil and grabbing his nose and stuff if he got too cheeky but I don't suppose I ever will.

I have hope of such a meeting of minds happening. I think it's more likely than a Smiths reunion, sadly..

I think Basil would suit a quiff..

 

[Dave]

I wish he would just challenge someone to a duel.

 

[Dow Jones]

I wish he would just challenge someone to a duel.

Like with Yu-Gi-Oh cards? I would pay to see that.
I want him to use my card, though.

 

[Dave]

I like your card.

 

[bysshe]

Like with Yu-Gi-Oh cards? I would pay to see that.
I want him to use my card, though.

Brilliant.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

Now that is funny.