Libel got you down? Well, it should...

I just reviewed an article in The Red & Black entitled "Student, on probation for animal cruelty, accumulates drug charges (w/documents)", and there is only one word to describe it: intense. Not only has Ashley Council, the subject of the crime story, been arrested numerous times, but she's also been charged with multiple different offenses, and, to make matters worse, she's been withdrawn and readmitted into the University creating a mess out of the situation and her personal record and involving more than one judicial system. It seems like it would be so easy to say one wrong thing or get all the facts mixed up and, the next day, have all these lawyers calling to set things straight.

To check behind the reporter to make sure there is no libel in the story, I am going to analyze how the story fares against the 5 parts of libel and some of its defenses.

Publication - There is definitely publication, both online and in the paper on Feb. 24, 2009.
Identification - Ashley Rose Council, 21, a University student (at times) has definitely been identified. Especially with her picture in the paper, there is no way to get around it.
Defamation - Definitely. Charges of animal cruelty, DUI, and obstruction of a law enforcement official are very serious, especially the fact that she's served jail time. I don't even know her, but after I read this story, I definitely don't want to meet her. If I feel this way, I can only imagine what future employers, judges, and neighbors will think after reading this article.
Injury - As far as monetary loss, I don't know if there is any. I mean, I suppose there could be monetary loss in the sense that people wouldn't want to hire her after this article was published, but that's kind of hard to prove. Otherwise, I think the only loss is really just in reputation.
Fault - I don't think it was done on purpose or with intent. All the facts seem to check, and she even cites police reports in most cases - but maybe The Red & Black just made some stuff up to generate some interest on campus or maybe someone at the paper just didn't like her. Again, it's not really clear, but you never know.

If I were a judge and just considered those 5 things without further investigation, The Red & Black would probably be done for. The things mentioned in that article about Council are horrible...but are they true?

Truth, to me, seems like the only defense that could beat this case. As far as qualified privilege is concerned, the paper had the right to use police reports and contact others about the case that would give them information, and the paper has the right to comment on matters of public interest or things on public display, especially those which might harm the safety of the citizens.

If I were the news editor of The Red & Black, I would probably ask to see the police reports. I did a quick search of Ashley Council's name on Google and found various other articles from news organizations and animal shelters saying the same thing about Council's arrests. However, they are not qualified sources. I am not sure if there is a place online to find accurate and official information on arrests, charges, and police reports, so I would definitely probably make sure that the reporter obtained a copy of the police report to bring to me when I read through her article. If all the information checks out, which I think it does, then the article is fine - for the most part.

Additional Analysis ------------------------------------------------------

There is one part in the article towards the end which is kind of touchy. In this part, the reporter writes:

"Even if Council is found guilty on all four of this weekend's charges, the University Judiciary is likely to sentence her to a year of University probation. Council would still be a University student.

However, due to a recent change in University policy, if Council were to drop out of school for over a year - due to jail time or otherwise - she would have to reapply to the University."

While this statement may look fine, the problem is that it assumes what action the University Judiciary will take. This information is not based on any facts, and if it is, it should be explicitly stated in the article. In order to make these sentences better, the reporter could maybe cite other cases similar to this where the same action was taken by the University Judiciary. Until the reporter can prove that there was a precedent, however, judgments should not be made on the outcome of the case and the University Judiciary should be free to decide what they think is right free from outside influence. To me, these statements are not considered fair comment because there is no factual basis listed in the article for these opinions.

Brittany