Simon Singh is a science journalist being sued by the British Chiropractor Association for saying they "happily promote bogus treatment". The libel laws in the UK are ridiculously draconian, putting all the onus on the person being sued, contrary to the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also contrary to the libel laws of essentially every other nation on the planet.
A judge looked over the case and said that Simon’s use of the word bogus meant that he was ascribing ill motivations to the BCA, and allowed the case to continue. Simon was initially denied an appeal to this ruling, but then appealed that… and yesterday a court said he does indeed have the right to appeal! This is definitely a victory, but what it means is that Simon can now continue fighting this ridiculous suit and this ridiculous libel law. So there’s a long way to go.
But in a weird twist, the ever-vigilant Jack of Kent saw a press release by the BCA today that ascribed malice to Simon’s motivations for writing the original article. That’s a big deal; if they pursue this line of attack then it may limit Simon’s ability to defend himself. What’s funny is that saying Simon is malicious is itself defamatory, and to me it seems that he could sue them for libel. I don’t think he will, but… Jack of Kent later discovered that the press release was quickly edited, and the words about malice on Simon’s part was removed. However, the ‘net being what it is, the originally-worded press release is still out there.
[UPDATE: Jack has written a follow-up blog post about this, saying that the BCA has defamed Simon, and it appears Jack and I are in agreement. He also mentions that if Simon threatens to countersue the BCA -- which he has every right to do -- it may end the case right then and there. I know Simon well enough to know that he will think carefully about this; he wants to do the right thing in the long run, which is defend himself and show that the libel laws are awful. A happy aftereffect of this would be the global shaming of the BCA, which has been underway for months now; they have the most amusing ability to bend over backwards to make themselves look foolish... an ironic feat for a chiropractic association.]
Interesting. I know Jack is writing more on this, and I’ll update this when he has more.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Seems to me Simon needs a lot more money.
Where can we donate?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Chiropractic woo fail!
October 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
About English libel laws: IANAL but it seems to me that the major problem is not the way the law is framed but the costs associated with carrying the case and the ridiculous awards sometimes made against whoever loses. These costs can be used by wealthy people/organisations to bully poorer people/organisations and to prevent legitimate criticism using legal chill.
(and for the avoidance of doubt, in the case of Singh I am 100% behind his cause)
You wrote: “The libel laws in the UK are ridiculously draconian, putting all the onus on the person being sued, contrary to the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also contrary to the libel laws of essentially every other nation on the planet”
If I may borrow a phrase, I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that. And should be. Placing the onus of proof needs to be carefully considered.
In some cases it is right and proper that the person being sued should come up with the proof. Suppose (this story is hypothetical, OK?) I am a good, honest teacher but a neighbour with whom I have an acrimonious (but essentially technical) dispute about, say, a garden wall goes around saying that I am a paedophile, when I am not. That would be devastating to my personal life and career. Destructive to my good reputation. I sue him for libel. First, why should I be put to the potentially ruinous cost of defending myself when I am an innocent victim of a lie? Second, and more importantly, how would it be possible for me to prove that I do not have the character or behaviour associated with the lie? In this case the onus must be on the person being sued to prove their assertion. The person being sued must provide the evidence.
On the other hand (another hypothetical story) perhaps a charlatan is accused of claiming to treat patients when there is no evidence to support the claim. The charlatan sues the accuser. In this case the accuser cannot prove that the charlatan has no evidence: it must be down to the charlatan to produce it, whereupon the accuser gets taken down a peg or two. The person who is suing must provide the evidence.
The two cases are different in the logical stance of what can/cannot be proved.
It’s not hard to create examples where the logical and moral onus to provide proof is less clear cut.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I bought one of Simon’s books today – ironically I don’t think I would have heard of him if not for this ridiculous case!
October 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
For what it’s worth I like the QBVII defense. Sadly, TTBOMK it’s only ficticious: let the BCA win award them a half-penny in damages as that is what their reputation is worth. Oh well.
Back to reality, the MacLibel trial was the trial of the century in the UK. MacDonald’s won. But the hideously bad publicity did not do them much good as the pamphlet the two vegetarians handed out in front of a London MacDonald’s saw very widespread dissemination on the internet – seen by billions (pun intended) – but the victory over poor activists with maybe a few hundred pounds in their bank accounts and no assets backfired.
Sadly, I suspect that Mr. Singh has assets (and likely better things to do with his time than fend off a major lawsuit).
On a tangential note, when I was very young and very stupid I hurt my neck and thought that a chiropractor was the right person to go to for that (Jr. H.S. teacher spoke of them well). As I sat in his exam/treatment room I saw a framed quote from Thomas Edison – some silly grandiloquent fluff about treating all ills with attention to the proper human frame, or something. Thomas Edison waxing polemic about medicine?! Say what? I remember sitting there thinking “Oh, shit! What am I doing here?!”
October 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
he wants to do the right thing in the long run, which is defend himself and show that the libel laws are awful.
Seems like a countersuit would accomplish both ends.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Matt (#3): Yeah, there does seem to be a weird Streisand effect to this. Not only is the BCA (and chiropractic in general) getting a lot of negative exposure out of the lawsuit but Simon Singh is getting a lot of good publicity. If the BCA had kept quiet about it, most of us wouldn’t have even known about Simon, let alone read his article or bought his books.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Chiropractors need to quit suing people who call them out on pseudoscientific BS and stick with what they do best, giving your back that satisfying cracking sound.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
[...] Blogs / Bad Astronomy « Some good news and some weird news with Simon Singh [...]
October 15th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Singh’s books are very popular in the UK and he’s on telly a fair bit. I don’t think the case has raised his profile much here.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Please don’t tell me that the British libel laws are so Draconian that merely being accused of malice limits one’s defense abilities?
October 15th, 2009 at 10:45 am
BTW, “innocent until proven guilty” applies in the US to criminal court, not civil court. If you’re suing someone, it’s a “preponderance of evidence” thing. In other words, whichever party can afford more discovery motions and expert witness testimony.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
cgr makes a good point above. Calling the UK libel laws Draconian is a hyperbole.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I could be wrong but for a statement to be libelous, it has to be false.
So is it true of false that they “happily promote bogus treatment” ?
Are they unhappy when they provide treatment?
Is the treatment they provide bogus?
I would say that some are and some are not.
Since he did not say that ALL treatments are bogus, can he be vindicated for showing that even one treatment is bogus?
Just wondering.
Perry L. Porter?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
That was alot of bad legal analysis in one post.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
And the bottom line…Singh is doing it for the kids. Not his ego or his book or his lab bum boys. He has a heart of gold and a great haircut. Let him stand up and say what he likes (a place of court decides evil from good..or just a village idot)if the third largest primary health care provider was built on cult/whacky ideas it would not be here today. There is a ’singh’ on every street and he is merely the tip of the ice berg. The laws of free speech may be primative in the UK but really the issue is war of two professions Med Vs Chiro. Chiro was first coined ‘unorthodox’ then ‘alternative’ now complementary. Its power to the people blog heads, science is always subject to change, change is needed because – this is a show stopper – evidence based medicine is responsable for todays maintream health, and people are now demanding services, different to medicine (becuase they have tried it and they are unhappy), basic supply and demand
October 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the state, and the legal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The standards of evidence are difference in civil cases, mainly because it’s a dispute between two individuals, and not the state vs. an individual. So they usually just choose the person who has the best evidence, regardless of whether the plaintiff has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The thing in US law is that we have a very high standard for proving libel… for a libel case to succeed, you have to prove it was 1. a lie, and 2. the lie was made with malice. If the lie was a mistake, then you can’t sue. If they pretend the law was a mistake… you can’t sue. This has the effect of letting people say just about whatever malicious lie they want without consequence.
Obviously the Simon Singh case was ridiculous. By “bogus” he did not mean that they were acting with malice. It’s sort of a reverse of the situation here – you have to prove what was in someones head, which is a ridiculous standard for something like a lie or an untruth.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Depending on the rules, both press releases are likely defamatory. Singh is publicly branded as malicious and libelous without either claim being proven. This may be an ill-conceived “trial by press release” which the BCA hopes to use in their favor in court.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
One other thing to note about this case — assuming the BCA doesn’t qualify as a private individual, it’s up to the BCA to prove that Singh was defaming with malice aforethought to collect any monetary damages from him, so even if Singh can’t prove that his statement was true to the satisfaction of the court, it’s quite likely he will not be out of pocket in terms of damages. I’m guessing that court costs are a different matter.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Matt at 3- Burdens of proof are a little more complex than you seem to think. In your example of someone wrongfully accused of being a pedophile, in most areas they wouldn’t have to “prove” to a scientific standard of proof that they aren’t a pedophile. They could simply state, under oath, “I am not a pedophile.” And then the other side would have to show either that this is not true, or that they had a valid reason to believe it even though it turned out to be false.
Basically, while the ultimate burden of proof would be on the one filing the lawsuit, the burden of proof can shift depending on whether various burdens of production have been filled. Its rather complex, but basically no one’s going to be unable to respond to a defamatory accusation because they can’t prove the contents of their own brain. The law’s already thought of that one.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
[...] Some good <b>news</b> and some weird <b>news</b> with Simon Singh | Bad <… [...]
October 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
check out…Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990), was a federal antitrust suit brought against the American Medical Association (AMA) and 10 co-defendants by chiropractor Chester A. Wilk, DC, and four co-plaintiffs. It resulted in a ruling against the AMA.
The AMA like Singh tried to use ‘lack of scientific evidence etc’ but unfortunatley in the court environment, science does not rule..just good and evil. The AMA got slapped in the face, and the result = MD were given the right to refer to chiropractors. (not all MD though, just the ones with hearts bigger than their egos)