Simon Singh is a science writer who wrote a piece published in the Guardian criticizing the British Chiropractic Association for supporting quackery (such as the use of chiropractic adjustments to treat children with colic, asthma and prolonged crying). The BCA’s response was to sue him for libel, and a preliminary ruling by a judge in the case would make it very likely that Singh will lose (he’s appealing the rulling). Singh is also facing a mammoth legal bill for his defense.
At issue here, beyond chiropractic quackery, is the use of libel law to punish people who reveal inconvenient truths and silence scientific debate. A petition drive is now underway in the scientific community to get Britain’s libel law reformed to prevent this sort of abuse (over 10,000 signatures have already been obtained).
The British Chiropractic Association’s punitive efforts are also backfiring in another sense - chiros’ claims are supposed to fall within proper advertising/trade guidelines, which apparently they haven’t been. A British chiro association has sent out a frantic e-mail to members urging them to take down their websites immediately, in the face of a flurry of complaints about false claims. How interesting that chiros upset about their treatments being called “bogus” are so worried that their website promotions will land them in trouble. In any event, the dubious websites have been archived elsewhere so their tripe is still available for all to see.
Here’s hoping that common sense and free speech triumph in this matter - and that British chiros face a big dose of embarassment over this travesty.
IANALawyer, but I’ve heard that British libel and slander law is considerably different from US law. People sue there rather than here if they can, because it is apprently much easier to win there. Perhaps an actual attorney can come along and provide actual knowledge.
It is, but one of the features of British (well, English) defamation law is that public figures have to prove malice in order to collect compensation while regular people don’t, IIRC.
American and not a lawyer, but AFAIK British libel laws are very different from American ones. It’s my impression that here, the burden of proof is on the person claiming libel (you have to prove someone lied about you), whereas in the UK, it’s on the person defending against the charge of libel (you have to prove you didn’t lie about someone).
ETA: RNATB, perhaps the distinction is between public *persons *and public organizations.
In this case it’s even more spectacularly retarded than the usual British libel farce; not only does Singh have to prove his innocence, he has to defend a meaning of his words that he explicitly disavowed, and does not believe. Justice Eady in this instance has decided, quite unilaterally and apparently before even hearing any arguments from either side (or for that matter even reading the entire article at issue), that Singh’s use of the word “bogus” meant he claimed the BCA knowingly promoted false or unproven treatments. As a result, Singh is now in the invidious position of having to prove a position he clearly never held in order to avoid liability. What a brilliant system, eh?
As Dead Badger’s post suggests, British defamation laws are considerably tougher for the defendants than those in the US.
I’m not sure if British defamation laws are similar to Australian ones, but in Australia (unlike in the US) truth does NOT constitute an absolute defense against a defamation suit. Depending on the jurisdiction (i.e., which Australian state you’re in), even a true statement may be considered defamatory if it is not considered to be for “public benefit” or of “public interest,” as defined by the court.
I’ve been plenty critical over the years of plenty of things about the United States, but when it comes to issues of speech and expression, it really is pretty much the freest country in the world.
The idea that civil penalties for certain types of speech are a restriction of the freedom of speech is rather a novel one, IMHO. Most people are talking about criminal penalties when they talk about controls on free speech.
If you say something true, and some can still sue you and be awarded financial damages for that, then you will be deterred from saying such things. That sounds like a restriction on the freedom of speech to me. You’re welcome to feel differently, but you’d be wrong.
In slightly better news: under huge pressure from the innumerable skeptics they have roused with their libel action, the BCA have released the “plethora of evidence” to support their claims that chiropractic treatments can cure colic and asthma. It is, needless to say, hilariously crap. Of the nine papers they cite relating to colic, only six were actual studies (the others being case reports or simple advice articles). Of those, not one had a control group, one was a questionnaire, two merely compared treatments (proving merely that they were equally useless), and quite brilliantly one did not study chiropractic at all, but cranial osteopathy. About the best they can say is that colicky children treated by chiropracters eventually get better. Y’know, like every other colicky child. (Although one paper hedged, and said only 93% of patients got better, raising the question of what on earth happened to that other 7%.)
Hopefully, if nothing else, the backlash the BCA have triggered will at least discourage other organisations from taking a similar tack in future. Of course, this is still disastrous for any sort of sensible scientific debate; scientists demanding evidence will be loath to publish for fear of libel suits, and quacks will obfuscate their claims yet further to avoid scrutiny. Hurrah.
I recently heard an interview with Mr. Singh where he stated that the average cost of a libel suit that goes to trial in England is (IIRC) 40x more than the next highest place in Europe (Ireland), which itself is 3-4 times the average cost of European nations. So England is over 100 times more costly than the average European nation to fight a libel suit. So most of the cases are settled and avoided simply because it’s absurdly costly to both sides.
Their system is ridiculous, with the burden of proof being on the defendent.
The trial is currently looking to be stacked against Mr. Singh because a judge interpreted his claim that chiropractic promises are “bogus” (ie - unsupported wrong) as implying malice and fraud on the part of the chiropractors, rather than his intent of claiming that it is ineffective treatment.
Not only that, but apparently you can attempt to sue people in English courts by their standards regardless of where the libel occured. So if you post information to a website that someone in England decides is libelous and sues you, they can attempt sue you in English court even if you’ve never been in the country.
I’m glad he has the principle to fight this one out - both against quackery and the stupid English libel system. He’s fighting the good fight. Good luck.
