sammy (20.12.06 13:09) oh man!

quips (20.12.06 13:19) is there more to this than just a dodgy ad?

valentia / Website (20.12.06 13:20) crapola

amillionpieces / Website (20.12.06 13:30) Hey, don't worry. If the article is the truth then both the editor and you have a very solid defence of printing it, not only that but you have a journalistic duty to print it. They're being ridiculous suspending her! This makes me so mad, you have a right to run stories, freedom of speech, stupid whinging corporate whores. I could kick them repeatedly.

foxinthesnow / Website (20.12.06 13:56) Glaargh!

fab (20.12.06 14:05) Ok dont panic. Take a deep breath. Breath in. Breath out. Get some sugery tea. Sit down and have a wee think. You will be ok. Ed trusts you. So you will be fine

lilo / Website (20.12.06 14:28) Shit. Mr Pieces is right though - you've got to stand by what you wrote - you're on the side of truth and justice and you will win.

erudite baboon / Website (20.12.06 15:05) So you're now acting editor? Oh crikey! So was the article actually libelous?

yorksdevil / Website (20.12.06 15:51) i'm sure if that same story had appeared in a big national they'd have done nothing, it's just that a student paper is a soft target. The only thing the NUS is good for is 10% off in selected retailers.

Chintzy / Website (20.12.06 15:58) Well I've spoken to the Ed and there's going to be a meeting/investigation about it in the new year, then they'll make a decision whether to reinstate her or not. I'm hopng it is just a cautionary thing, and they will reinstate her, as there's no way I could do a good job at all, what with deadlines and final year projects and things. The union seem to be ARSES about it though. Ugh.

Chintzy / Website (20.12.06 16:01) Oh, and as for the article, it wasn't ACTUALLY libellous at all, as we said yeah, the building had problems (as it was brand new) but it got fixed. That is basically it. We've had 2lawyers look at it, journalism teachers look at it, and they say it's fine and fair.

awesomelies / Website (21.12.06 00:11) OK, some thoughts here while I wait for you to email me the article so I can actually read it *cough* -Truth is not an absolute defence against libel. It's generally enough but even if, say, this one allegation is demonstrably true, you could still be in trouble if the article goes on to suggest that the estate agent was acting maliciously or does this sort of thing all the time, rather than this just being a one-off mistake. -Offering to make amends is usually enough (printing a correction, retraction, official statement from the firm or whatever seems appropriate here). If you offer to do this and they refuse, they're unlikely to get very far in court. -All that said, what it sounds like to me is that the student union has panicked and responded in an entirely inappropriate fashion (although it's understandable, since I imagine they'll be ultimately liable to pay any damages from a court case). Suspending the editor is flat-out wrong unless there's no doubt at all that the piece was libellous. It's really up to him/her to fight their corner with the union here - by refusing to back down, pointing out that the article is sound and that the union should be DEFENDING ITS MEMBERS, as unions are supposed to do, rather than caving in at the first sign of trouble. If you or any of your student cohorts want to help, then try doing so through official channels. Make trouble! Submit emergency resolutions/call an emergency general meeting/whatever to condemn the union's behaviour and demand the editor's reinstatement. -Lastly, email me the goddamn article already. I don't know any lawyers but I can run it past at least three people with a combined 50+ years' experience of discerning the actually libellous from the merely likely to piss people off.

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons