Re: British libel law strikes again

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nick Johnson <arachnid () notdot net>
Date: May 9, 2009 12:08:15 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: swb () employees org
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: British libel law strikes again

If you read the original article, the Judge's ruling goes far beyond  
simply labeling it a statement of fact - he subsequently proceeded to  
rule on exactly what Singh meant when he said 'bogus', providing a  
meaning that is totally at odds with the rest of the article in  
question:

""Bogus" meant a lot more. The judge held that by the mere use of the  
word "bogus" Simon Singh was stating that, as a matter of fact, the  
BCA were being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for  
those children's ailments."

Whilst the original article says:

"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."

This is a far bigger issue than someone just needing to be more  
careful with words: The judge has literally put words into Mr Singh's  
mouth.

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Scott Brim <swb () employees org>
Date: May 9, 2009 9:56:32 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] British libel law strikes again

It seems to me that a "comment" is an expression of an opinion, while
a "statement of fact" is an assertion that something is objectively
true.  Mr Singh's statement, "This organisation is the respectable
face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus
treatments", is clearly phrased as a statement of fact.

This has nothing to do with the efficacy of chiropractic -- if he
makes a assertion of fact he must justify it.

From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net>
If it stands, the ruling is bad enough for Singh, who will have to
pay the BCA's costs. But it will have an even more terrible effect
on critiquing anything to do with pseudoscience or alt-med: talk
about  chilling effects.

Not at all -- it will have a chilling effect on sloppy use of words,
and require all sides to use them responsibly, and to avoid
emotion-laden rhetoric.  Those who want to deny any claim to
usefulness for such things as chiropractic should by all means
continue their challenges but do so constructively ... regardless of
how the other side behaves.

Scott





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com