Libel laws and science

[Royston]

For anybody who hasn't already signed, or is even aware of the BCA libel case against Simon Singh, please click on the link below...

 

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

 

Thankfully the debate has reached the House of Commons, but any extra support, in giving freedom of speech within the scientific community and beyond, is a petition worth signing for. The full story is available through the link above.

[Severian]

What is wrong with the Libel law? If he made comments in the article which did indeed make "the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them (the BCA) of thoroughly disreputable conduct" then he should have the evidence to back it up. If he doesn't have that evidence, then it is right that he should be sued and I have no sympathy.

[CaptainPanic]

Libel and Science don't seem to have much in common.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=libel

 

I dont' see the problem.

 

Too many people nowadays suggest that the "freedom of speech" is threatened when they're not allowed to discriminate or insult. I find that these people are hijacking the true "freedom of speech" discussion which does not treat the communications between two individuals, but the criticism of the entire system or government.

[John Cuthber]

What is wrong with the Libel law? If he made comments in the article which did indeed make "the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them (the BCA) of thoroughly disreputable conduct" then he should have the evidence to back it up. If he doesn't have that evidence, then it is right that he should be sued and I have no sympathy.

 

What he wrote in a Guardian article was this

"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

 

I guess it depends on your deffinition of dishonesty or disreputable conduct.

Does your definition include taking money from people with asthma (or the parents of children with the disease) to "manipulate" their spines as a "treatment" even though this has been shown to have no effect on the disease?

 

His evidence wasn't hard to find. It was the next paragraph in the same newspaper article.

 

"I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions."

 

I think the point of the protest is that the decision on such things should be made by those versed in science rather than the law.

[Severian]

I think the point of the protest is that the decision on such things should be made by those versed in science rather than the law.

 

Well I am not going to argue with that!

[D H]

The heart of the problem is deeper than libel versus science in Britain. Their libel laws are flawed, period, to the point that the UN says British libel laws violate human rights. In other aspects of British law there is a presumption of innocence on the part of the accused party. In British libel law there is a prior assumption of guilt. The burden of proof falls on the accused parties to prove they are innocent.

[John Cuthber]

Imagine that I were to say

"you would say that- you are a psychopathic murderer".

Under UK law you could take me to court and require me to prove that either the statement is true, that it's a reasonable exageration, or that I had reasonable grounds to believe that it was true when I made it. If I couldn't prove one of those justifications I would be in trouble.

 

Would you prefer a system where I can make an allegation like that without any comeback or one where you would have to prove that the allegation was false?

 

I guess you can prove your not a psychopath. What if I had accused you of plagirism?

What would you do if I said that the stuff you post isn't really your own work- you copy it from other people?

 

Under UK law I'd need to show that was true or I could be sued for libel. Would you really prefer that you had to prove that you didn't crib the stuff from someone else, and how would you do that?

[D H]

Would you prefer a system where I can make an allegation like that without any comeback or one where you would have to prove that the allegation was false?

False dilemma. Other countries do have libel laws. They just don't presume guilt. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the defendant.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure what the rules are like elsewhere but surely one side or the other has to prove their case. In the UK if I make an allegation I have to prove it's true or I'm in trouble.

What happens in the states?

[D H]

That is the problem in the UK. You make an allegation that somebody has libeled you and the accused has to prove he didn't. In the US (and elsewhere), if you make an allegation that somebody has libeled you then you have to prove that allegation.

[John Cuthber]

The allegation is in a nationally published newspaper.

How difficult is it to prove that?

 

In this case Singh made the allegation that the some of the chiropractors are quacks.

There's no question that he made the allegation.

There's no question that an allegation of quackery is normally defamatory.

The only complication is that, according to the evidence, it's true. They were taking money to "treat" a disease even though they knew the treatment had no effect.

Singh described this as unprofessional which is fair comment.

Telling the truth about someone isn't defamation under UK law.

 

The problem is that for some reason the judge came to a different conclusion.

The law isn't the problem here.

Perhaps the legal system isn't the right forum to make such a decision. Perhaps that way Singh wouldnt have to pay damages for telling the truth.

[iNow]

An article from Singh:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6493564.ece

Last year I published an article in The Guardian about chiropractors who claim to treat childhood conditions such as asthma, colic and ear infection. My views on that treatment clashed with those of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) and it threatened to sue me for libel.

 

Although The Guardian offered a right of reply, the dispute was not resolved and the BCA served proceedings. At this point, I could have backed down, apologised and paid a relatively small amount of damages. However, I believe that my article is important and covers a matter of public interest, so I have decided to fight the libel action.

 

So far, standing by my article and fighting the case has taken up a year of my life and has cost £100,000; the battle could continue for another year, and final costs could exceed £500,000.

 

It seems ridiculous that I should have to pay such vast amounts of money to defend an article about an important health issue. I am not alone: libel suits against scientists and science journalists are increasingly common.

 

<...>

 

There are several reasons the English libel system is unfair, but the greatest problem is that of costs. A report by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University pointed out that the costs in defamation litigation are 100 times higher in England and Wales than most other European countries. Trials rarely cost less than £100,000 and often exceed £1m.

 

Even if a journalist is convinced that an article is defensible, the risk of a poor judgment or losing on a technicality, with the ensuing financial disaster, is just too great to take. Therefore good journalists are forced to apologise and important articles are withdrawn. Worse still, journalists are increasingly likely to avoid investigating certain subjects for fear of a libel action. And it is not just individual journalists who feel intimidated, but also local and national newspapers. The result is that British readers do not get to hear the truth.

 

<...>

 

I should emphasise that we are not suggesting the concept of libel should be dropped; rather that other countries have quicker, fairer and more efficient libel processes and we should follow them.

 

 

 

 

(Although already shared in the OP...) For those who agree that we should exercise better sense about science, and that the law has little (if any) place in disputes about evidence, please sign here:

 

 

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/326

We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

 

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

 

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

 

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world.

 

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

 

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

 

Signed

 

Everyone below signed as an individual unless otherwise stated

[Royston]

I realise this is an old thread, but thought some of you may be interested, I'll post more updates as and when they happen...

 

Tomorrow morning the appeal judgment in Simon Singh’s case with the British Chiropractic Association will be handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice. It is going to be a very important day for us as this judgment will have implications beyond Simon’s case on science writing and on libel law reform.

 

The judgement, written by three of the most senior judges in England and Wales - Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley - is on Simon's appeal against the preliminary ruling on meaning given by Mr Justice Eady in May 2009. It will determine whether Simon can defend his writing as fair comment or will have to justify it as fact.

 

Please do come to Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London tomorrow, Thursday 1st April, at 9.30 am to hear the result and show Simon your support.

 

Simon was interviewed about his case and the wider campaign for The Times on Saturday. Read it here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7078008.ece#cid

 

For a round up of the case so far, and possible implications of the judgement, see Jack of Kent’s blog here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/03/simons-judgment-day.html

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'll post more updates as and when they happen...

 

I didn't mean to sound like a TV news ad

 

Good news though...

 

A very quick note to make sure you heard that Simon Singh’s appeal in his case with the BCA was upheld today. It means that Simon can now defend his article as comment rather than as fact, as Justice Eady had originally ruled.

 

Simon said today: “It is ridiculous that it has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a handful of words. I am delighted that my meaning has been vindicated by three of the most powerful judges in the country, and I relish the opportunity to defend this meaning in court. However, I am still angry that libel is so horrendously expensive. That is just one of the reasons why the battle for libel reform must continue.”

 

You can read more comments from campaigners and supporters at www.libelreform.org/news/450-judgement-in-simon-singh-libel-case

 

And the judgment and Simon’s lawyer’s notes on what this means for Simon’s case and for libel reform is here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/473/

 

Jack of Kent has blogged on the ruling here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

 

The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court

 

The Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7543685/Science-writer-Simon-Singh-wins-Court-of-Appeal-libel-battle.html

 

BBC Radio 4 World at One http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rlff7

 

BBC online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

 

And check here for updated lists of press coverage: www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/473/

 

Keep an eye out for Simon, his lawyer Robert Dougans and members of the libel reform campaign on Channel 4 news, the BBC News channel, Sky News and BBC radio stations this evening.

Simon, and the campaign for libel reform, both still have a very long fight ahead of us. We are very pleased the three most powerful members of the Judiciary in England have recognised the need for libel law reform. We need to make sure everyone else does too.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Snail
Consecutive posts merged.