As one example, this tourism hurts human-rights NGOs that have to prove their reports, which often endangers their witnesses, if indeed they will even testify, and threatens to bankrupt the NGO.
Singh's case is just an example of a much wider problem. It's not even that what he said was definitely not libellous--although I am no expert on libel law, far from it.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that it's far more costly to defend than bring about a libel case. And only the rich can afford to defend themselves properly. Anyone else may well have their career financially wrecked.
It's a limit of freedom of speach through fear of the financial costs of criticism--even if that criticism can be backed up with hard-evidence.
The article focuses on science journalists, not on scientists themselves. I wonder how this affects scientific debate. Scientific articles as a rule will say that something previously done was wrong, so given the asymmetry of risks it seems that in situations with large economic interest the scientists themselves would be open to lawsuits. I could see the fossil fuel lobby suing James Hansen, for example.
In Britain international criminal lord could sue Interpol for libel and win.
I think that only sensible way to deal with the libel is to allow it. It's already that way in reality. If someone spreads a rumour about someone else to hurt his reputation the source of gossip is impossible to track and impact can be devastating despite all the clarifications and court judgements. Explicitly allowing for libel could do the same to impact of false claims that possibility of posting anything on the internet did to perceived credibility of any unverified information.
Those laws might be fine when small amount of influential people could effectively disseminate information but in the viral age of today, when false information written on someones anonymous blog can sweep across information agencies all over the world the libel laws effectively serve only trolls and powerful organization to fight journalists.
I don't follow the reasoning that Britain's libel laws are too strong.
- Singh could have apologised if he didn't mean it, it is clear that he wanted to portray chiropracty as quackery. From what I heard he also said that the evidence in come cases was concocted: which is counterfeit.
- The raised profile of this case is ideal to get at the truth, I know people have cancelled appointments after they read of this case.
- He's not without friends, fund-raisers have been held across Britain to help him
- This has furthered his career as a freelance journalist.
Court seems ideal to get at the truth of the matter. My feelings that he will come out of this very well, even if he looses.
This one made me wonder: "Moreover, English libel law favors the claimant — the person who says he or she has been defamed — in several ways. [...] in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true."
Is there really a law system where it's the other way around? This would be slanderer's paradise. One could write libelous articles as long as one made them hard to disprove.
If you look at it the other way around, it's currently a supressor's paradise. If you say something I don't like, I can sue you and you have to prove that every tiny detail of what you said is factual. Most people aren't going to be checking the dictionary definition of every word they speak or write just to check that they're being 100% factual. So therefore the person suppressing their speech will most likely win. The rest of the world likes to be a bit more sensible, it's up to the claimant to show that the information was incorrect, for things that actually matter this will be relatively easy to do.
Free speech with a few people getting away with a bit of name calling vs supression of valid points due to tiny mistakes in delivery. I know which one I'd rather have.
> If you say something I don't like, I can sue you and you have to prove that every tiny detail of what you said is factual.
Personally I don't have a problem with that. After all, you have to be very sure that you can win otherwise you're going to have to pay my legal fees, face a potential counter-suit, and worst of all, have your reputation tarnished even further. The thing is, people should be checking their facts before publishing them to a wider audience. Also, I'm pretty sure that courts are open to the idea that sometimes terms and phrases can be interpreted ambiguously. "Tiny mistakes in delivery" is of course relative, but it's unlikely that the courts will rule in favour of the plaintiff where their case is clearly frivolous.
"Science, after all, is about evaluating evidence. Science journalism, sometimes, requires pointing out when evidence is weak or absent. This is especially important in the context of medicine and health, where misinformation or lack of information can be deadly."
What exactly is the problem then? If misinformation can be so deadly then surely one should have a sober mind and do all his work, also think twice about maybe three times about misinforming the public or "bending" the fact due to conflicting interests.
Surely if what Mr. Sigh said is true, then there is no case to defend at all as I would presume that those who are bringing proceedings are not so stupid as to embark on such a journey when it is certain that what is said is the truth. Perhaps Mr. Sigh exaggerated a bit, perhaps to such extent that he defamed them and speaking outright lies so as to defend his own profession. I suppose he would not feel good if I were a respected and an individual of influence and said that medicine is rubbish, just drink some water with sugar as the placebo effect will take care.
I would suggest that this has nothing to do with Mr Sigh, or science, truth, justice, or right and wrong. Instead the journalists hate the fact that they can not exaggerate stories to such extent as to tell lies in order to sell their papers. Science journalists are the worst, claiming contradictory findings every day and exaggerating all findings out of proportion.
The truth of the matter is that libel laws are there to protect the public. Lying is not a crime, but it does have strong moral condemnation. Defaming on the other hand is a lie of extraordinary proportion which cause so much damage to the defamed organisation or individual but also society as a whole. Tell the truth and you have nothing to worry. Lie and you do so at your own peril.
We can not have the forth arm of governing be unaccountable. Libel laws are there to keep journalists in check. If they became more lenient no one would benefit, not even the newspapers as no one would trust them any longer.
