Re: Dangerous lawsuit in Britain (open letter)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kevin Coates <kevin.coates () europemail org>
Date: October 18, 2009 11:13:51 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Dangerous lawsuit in Britain (open letter)

For IP, if you wish.

Recent developments suggest that things might be looking up.

Simon Singh, the defendant, has been granted leave to appeal,  
including on the basis that the article was fair comment.  The  
presiding judge described the first instance judgment as "legally  
erroneous" and also referred to Article 10 of the European Convention  
on Human Rights.  A summary / commentary is here:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/permission-granted.html

Singh has been quoted in the press - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/simon-singh-chiropractors-appeal 
 - as saying that this was the "best possible result" (so far at  
least).

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 18:19, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Randall Webmail <rvh40 () insightbb com>
> Date: October 18, 2009 17:34:12 EDT
> To: johnmacsgroup () yahoogroups com, dewayne () warpspeed com, dave () farber net
> Subject: Dangerous lawsuit in Britain (open letter)
>
> "The law has no place in scientific disputes"
>
> http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334/
>
> 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.
Archives        



--
Kevin

Email: kevin.coates () europemail org
US mobile: 1.917.975.3552




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