Re: British libel law strikes again

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Davey <ip () pdc co uk>
Date: June 12, 2009 4:45:55 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: British libel law strikes again

More on this topic if you want it:

Not mentioning Simon Singh but relevant to those worrying about the  
English libel laws as applied to work published elsewhere (eg the USA)  
there was a very short segment yesterday morning on BBC Radio's  
flagship news programme Today.

This started with a conversation with Congressman Pete King on his  
draft legislation to protect Americans from foreign libel laws, then  
switched to a UK lawyer explaining why he thinks this risk is  
overblown, based on past rulings and practice.

For example courts would reject a claim where the defendant points out  
that there is a more appropriate jurisdiction for a case, and also  
past precedent that a few page views (or maybe downloads?) (from a  
foreign site?) do not constitute publishing...

I think the audio will be here for at least a week:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8094000/8094842.stm

Here is the intro detail from that page:
Do libel laws stifle free speech?

Britain's libel laws are being criticised by US legislators. Members  
of Congress in Washington are trying to pass new laws to protect US  
journalists and NGOs from "libel tourism" - the practice of foreigners  
using UK libel law to silence their critics. Lawyer Laurence Harris  
examines if UK libel laws are stifling free speech

--
 kind regards

    Paul


2009/6/7 David Farber <dave () farber net>


Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Davey <ip () pdc co uk>
Date: June 7, 2009 11:13:09 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] British libel law strikes again

As well as going to the Court of Appeal over this ruling Simon Singh  
has now launched a campaign to reform the English libel laws.

The reform activity is being co-ordinated by Sense About Science - see 
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust promoting good  
science and evidence in public debates. (It has for example provided  
information on bird flu, detox, stem cell research and nuclear  
science, and helping the public assess claims about cures and  
treatments for long-term conditions.)

So IP readers who believe it is "inappropriate to use the English  
libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and  
scientific evidence" can add their names to the campaign can add their  
names. There are many international scientists and other notable  
people already listed.

There was an interview with Singh about this on the BBC radio  
programme Material World broadcast on 2009-06-04 see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kpzdj 
 (it also available to listen on line - at least in the UK)

There are some details of the case and why he expects his application  
to the Court of Appeal to fail - on this page: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340 
  - He also has a supporting Facebook group.

kind regards
  paul davey

2009/5/9 David Farber <dave () farber net>


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net>
Date: May 9, 2009 8:33:32 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: British libel law strikes again
Reply-To: wendyg () pelicancrossing net

For IP if you wish:

On Thursday, the British judge Sir David Eady made a disturbing and  
alarming ruling in a libel case brought by the British Chiropractic  
Association against Simon Singh (www.simonsingh.net), author of many  
science books including Fermat's Last Theorem and, germane to this  
case, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (cu-author  
Edzard Ernst). Singh also writes for the Guardian, and the libel case  
turned on a statement he made in a piece he wrote on chiropractic for  
the Guardian's comment pages.

The legal blogger Jack of Kent explains the legal ins and outs of this  
ruling much better than I can in two posts. The first is a summary of  
what happened at the hearing on Thursday; the second opens the  
discussion of Singh's options:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html

Briefly, the judge ruled that Singh's use of the term "bogus" for  
chiropractic in certain circumstances was a statement of fact rather  
than a comment, which under the British legal system puts Singh in an  
impossible position: at a trial he would have to prove that the  
*judge's* interpretation of what he said is factually true. He can  
appeal the ruling, but because it hinges on the *meaning* of the  
passage at issue, apparently it's very rare for this sort of ruling to  
be overturned.

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.

wg
Founder, the UK's The Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.org.uk)




-------------------------------------------
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        





-------------------------------------------
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