How can we say if he should sue? We don't know what actually took place during the interview, if he's been misquoted, etc. I don't think he should sue (and don't think he should have the right to sue) if he's merely upset about the
opinion the NME has about things he said.
NME ought to have freedom of speech as well as the famous celebrities they cover. If NME wants to attack a public figure over his political views, why don't they have the right to do so? I'm speaking as an American, where protecting freedom of speech and freedom of press is more important than it is in the UK. The UK has become a hotbed of defamation lawsuits from the rich, the famous, and the powerful because the laws are stacked to shield the rich, the famous, and the powerful from attacks in the media.
I personally think the NME was unfair to Morrissey. I don't share many of Morrissey's views, but I don't think he said anything (in this instance, or in most every instance outside of his advocacy of the Animal Rights Militia) that is "beyond the pale" of respectable discourse, and I don't think he said anything that is racist. Their reaction to his comments is so typical of those (particularly leftists) who seek to silence discussion on complicated topics. In this case, the NME sends the message that if you dare speak openly about your concerns about immigration you might be labeled a racist. This sort of reaction can only help parties like the BNP, who can then cry out: "We're the only ones with the BALLS to speak about these issues that you're all thinking and whispering about! Come join us!"
But whatever my opinion of the NME's treatment of Morrissey is, and however much I defend Morrissey's right to speak his mind, I don't see why the NME doesn't have the right to attack Morrissey's comments as long as they accurately report/quote what his comments were. The idea that the NME is required to serve the celebrities they cover and simply be used by them to promote product is absurd, but that is the line people in this forum are taking. In my opinion, the NME has every right to take whatever position they desire regarding Morrissey's words/views, and attack him however much they'd like, so long as they do not lie about what he said. Morrissey's lyrics and interviews frequently venture into controversial subjects and that is cool and brave. Except now he's being a pussy over a magazine disagreeing with him and that is pathetic.
If the NME is unfair and silly in their coverage, the readers can judge that and the NME will pay a price. But we don't need courts to silence the press if they say a disparaging word about the public figures they cover. The press does not exist solely to be tools of the celebrity to promote the celebrity as the celebrity desires.
Frankly, I'm surprised Morrissey's comments on immigration cause the most controversy when this is a man who gave his full and enthusiastic support to those who commit acts of terrorist violence such as sending nail bombs to the family residences of scientists working on cures for cancer and AIDS. I never thought Morrissey should be silenced or boycotted over those views which I find utterly dispicable and indefensible, but I sure think he deserved to be attacked way more than he was over them. This immigration stuff really doesn't raise much of an eyebrow for me. Immigration has big impacts on countries and their citizens and the people should be allowed to openly discuss what the immigration policies of their government should be. I may not agree with many of the attacks on Mexican illegal aliens in the Southwest of the USA (I actually don't feel much concerned at all about the Mexican illegal alien situation), but I can totally understand why it's a big topic of discussion for the people in the cities they most effect. Not all of these people hate Mexicans or are racist and they should not be labeled as such just because they think there's too many people pouring over the border in too short a time period.
I find it interesting that so many of the folks rushing to have Morrissey's back are some of the same people who have unjustly called me all sorts of labels and slurs simply because I'm not a fan of Islam and have concerns about the large numbers of radical, fundamentalist, unassimilated Islamist immigrants in Western Europe, and agree with writer Sam Harris when he wrote:
The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
I generally support very liberal immigration policies for my country (the USA) and am also very tolerant of illegal aliens. But I do worry about Islamist extremists coming to the West in large numbers, and I don't appreciate being constantly labeled things because I am concerned about it. I wish the Morrissey-Solo community were as fair to everyone as they want the NME to be fair to Morrissey. But I understand why that's not the case, as Morrissey is a celebrity many here worship. So, Morrissey should sue the NME out of existance because they disagree with his discomfort about too many foreigners and too much foreign cultural influence in England, but Theo should be run off of SoLow because he merely doesn't like Islamist-fascists running around the West spitting on women who aren't covered from head to toe, bullying and threatening everyone they disagree with, and actively recruiting people to blow up subways.
