Free Speech & Libel Laws - yet another petition - please sign up NOW!

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
This week, Simon Singh, one of Britain's best science writers, will decide whether to carry on playing a devilish version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? He has already lost £100,000 defending his right to speak frankly. He could walk away. No one would think the worse of him if he did. Or he could go on and risk losing the full million by ensnaring himself in the rapacious world of an English judiciary that seems ever eager to bow to the demands of Saudi oil billionaires, Russian oligarchs and the friends of Saddam Hussein to censor critics and punish them with staggering damages and legal fees.

It seems no choice at all. Any friend Singh phoned would tell him to cut his losses and run. But if he were to turn to the audience, he would hear scientists all but screaming at him to go to the Court of Appeal and challenge a judgement that threatens the robust discussions open societies depend on. A national defence campaign is ready to roll on his command. At a preliminary support meeting, a cheering crowd acclaimed him as a free-speech champion.

In truth, he makes an unlikely warrior. Singh is a serious and amiable man, whose accounts of the solving of Fermat's last theorem and code breaking won high praise and provoked no controversy. Last year, he published Trick or Treatment? with Professor Edzard Ernst on the reliability of "alternative medicine", and devoted a chapter to the strange history of chiropractic treatments. One Daniel David Palmer invented the therapy in Davenport, Iowa, in 1895, when he convinced himself that he had cured a janitor's deafness by "racking" his back.

Inspired by this miracle, Palmer developed the theory that "95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae", rather than, say, the germs that so bothered conventional doctors of the time. Chiropractic therapy was a new religion, Palmer declared, and he was a successor to Christ, Muhammad and Martin Luther. At home, he practised vigorous racking on his children.

His son, Bartlett, described how he beat them with "straps until we carried welts, for which Father was often arrested and spent nights in jail". Bartlett bought the first car Davenport had seen and paid his father back by running him down on the day of the Palmer School of Chiropractic Homecoming Parade.

Palmer died of his injuries a few weeks later, but his ideas lived on. In 2008, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) announced that its members could help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying. Writing in the Guardian, Singh said the claim was "bogus". Chiropractic treatments may help relieve back pain, but Professor Ernst had examined 70 trials and found no evidence that they could relieve other conditions.

. . . . . Read more HERE.
Click to expand...
Sign the petition HERE.


Thanks :)
 
is this the case where singh called a group a fraud but could provide no evidence of it? I am not sure that is something that should be protected. stating that someone is being deliberately and wilfully dishonest is a serious accusation that should be supported by actual evidence and is far beyond a simple critique of the failures of chiropractery...
 
Dolph said:
is this the case where singh called a group a fraud but could provide no evidence of it? I am not sure that is something that should be protected. stating that someone is being deliberately and wilfully dishonest is a serious accusation that should be supported by actual evidence and is far beyond a simple critique of the failures of chiropractery...
Click to expand...



Actually the problem is the word "bogus", which he used to define chiropractice. The judge took the view that by using the word "bogus", Singh was accusing the Chiropacters Association of deliberate fraud, when most people understand the word to mean "wrong". The differience is that between fair comment and libel.

All of which is beside the point: the fact is that various shady groups are using English libel law to stifle genuine comment on important matters. The various quack medicines are particularly fond of this game: why engage in scientific debate when all you have to do is sue for libel? Since the English libel law makes you guilty until you can prove your innocence, the sheer cost of libel lawyers means that this is often an effective threat - look how long Jonathan Aitken was able to lie before the Observer had the guts to defy him. Remember that all the other papers had the same story, but decided not to publish. Look at the super injunction against the Grauniad a few weeks ago from Trafegura (sp?) - that started from a libel accusation.


For a more reasoned and better worded argument, here's some detail from another victim, Ben Goldacre, who had the audacity to accuse a huge homeopathic medicine company owner of peddling quackery (OK, it was a bit more complicated than that). He is of course, but it took an extensive libel case, which many would not have fought, to get it out in the open.


M
 
He said quite correctly that there's no evidence supporting the claims that some chiropracters make about the treatment they offer. The problem is the judge ruled that he had to show they didn't believe their own claims rather than just show their claims were false.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
If you wish to call an organisation a fraud in the UK, be prepared to backup your words with fact.
It the way our laws work, and thats simply it.
Click to expand...

Have you read the article? Under Justice Eady's judgement if you said that the nazi's claims that jews were running america media were bogus then the nazi's could sue you successfully because you were implying they were being deliberately dishonest. i.e. if they truly believed it then you would lose the case. This is plainly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
bibalasvegas said:
Have you read the article? Under Justice Eady's judgement if you said that the nazi's claims that jews were running america medic were bogus then the nazi's could sue you successfully because you were implying they were being deliberately dishonest. i.e. if they truly believed it then you would lose the case. This is plainly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, it is UTTERLY ridiculous.
This is the state of the country in which we live.
This petition will achieve nothing, and I do hope I am proved to be incorrect.
The society is slowly falling apart under intrepatations of law which completely devour the spirit of the law. It should be unacceptable, but no one makes a political stand again it, and a political stand is what is required.
 
What makes you eligible to be sued for libel, I'm unfamiliar with the law?

I believe a private individual should be able to voice any opinion he wants, any time he wants, provided he is not lying with malicious intent. A journalist in a national paper should be under stricter rules of course, as he has the power to ruin people's lives (though that doesn't seem to stop the Daily Mail spreading muck every day of their existence) or affect people's livelihoods.
 
Gribs said:
He said quite correctly that there's no evidence supporting the claims that some chiropracters make about the treatment they offer. The problem is the judge ruled that he had to show they didn't believe their own claims rather than just show their claims were false.
Click to expand...

well, except the evidence referenced in the leaflet from the bca...

there Is an old thread in sc that will save the same arguments being repeated here about the case though..
 
So if someone states libels you (calls you a thief or worse) that causes loss of your job without any evidence - would you accept that?
 
Ziggy said:
Came in to post that petitions never achieve anything but the story angered me enough that I signed it.
Click to expand...
Hikari Kisugi said:
... This petition will achieve nothing, and I do hope I am proved to be incorrect. ...
Click to expand...
Having signed up to the petiotion, I see that you can also automatically send a letter to your MP asking him or her to support Early Day Motion #423 which may be more effective than just signing yet another on-line petition :)
 
Dolph said:
is this the case where singh called a group a fraud but could provide no evidence of it? I am not sure that is something that should be protected. stating that someone is being deliberately and wilfully dishonest is a serious accusation that should be supported by actual evidence and is far beyond a simple critique of the failures of chiropractery...
Click to expand...

The whole problem was that Eady decided that is what Singh said, when it was quite obvious it wasn't what he said at all, hence why he's been granted permission to appeal, and why it could all be thrown out of court
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/12/bca-v-singh-making-legal-history.html

As for the evidence in the BCA leaflet, you are aware that it has been completely demolished, and now chiropractors are having to remove claims from their websites and other advertising materials, due to their evidence being insufficient?
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/11/landmark-asa-ruling-on-asthma-and-colic/

The fact is, Singh's original statement is fair. The BCA's evidence was pathetic and they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot by pursuing this case.

As for whether this petition will work - the lib dems have made a pledge to sort out our libel laws and Jack Straw made similar promises the other week, but we shall see.
 
oli collett said:
The whole problem was that Eady decided that is what Singh said, when it was quite obvious it wasn't what he said at all, hence why he's been granted permission to appeal, and why it could all be thrown out of court
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/12/bca-v-singh-making-legal-history.html
Click to expand...

Indeed it could be, but I will remember that Jack of Kent never thought it would get this far either. Indeed, your interpretation appears to be your own, rather than his, from the article you have linked to.

As for the evidence in the BCA leaflet, you are aware that it has been completely demolished, and now chiropractors are having to remove claims from their websites and other advertising materials, due to their evidence being insufficient?
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/11/landmark-asa-ruling-on-asthma-and-colic/
Click to expand...

And I've never disputed that, however the difference between 'no evidence' and 'no evidence I consider credible' is still apparent, especially remembering that Singh was writing a piece advertising his own book...

The fact is, Singh's original statement is fair. The BCA's evidence was pathetic and they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot by pursuing this case.
Click to expand...

Well, that is still up for debate, and it does depend on how you read his original article... Perhaps the appeal court will clear it up once and for all either way. As I said in the earlier thread[/quote] by your good self, he could have avoided this by ensuring his context was clear in the first place, rather than a vitrolic blast to increase hype for his book.

As for whether this petition will work - the lib dems have made a pledge to sort out our libel laws and Jack Straw made similar promises the other week, but we shall see.
Click to expand...

I agree our libel laws need reform, I'm just not convinced this is the best case to base such reform on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom