Hero journalist Simon Singh has written a fantastic article for The Times Online about his libel case in the UK and libel in general: how it gags journalists and keeps people from learning important information.
If this article makes you angry, good. Do something about it.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
October 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Thanks! I will pass this info along as best I can.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I sent a rather strenuous message to the Brits noting that bankrupting people is tantamount to shooting them, as is often done in other totalitarian states, oops, did I imply Britain may also have some totalitarian leanings? My bad.Snark!
Gary 7
SO, is there no way to contribute to his defense fund?
October 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
There should be no such thing as “libel” or “slander”. Sure, it sucks if someone lies about you — but such laws allow the government to make value judgements that are none of its business to make.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Libel laws that censor real information yet allow the Daily Fail is allowed articles that are homophobic slags against an innocent deceased boy band singer. Something is not right here. How did they wind up with anti science pro tabloid laws.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Slightly OT: A historian looks at the BCS’s claim they have documented evidence that chiropractic manipulation goes back to 2700 – 1500 BC in China and Greece
October 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I noticed the link to the petition on the article itself doesn’t work — they should fix that.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Libel or slander should require the ‘injured party’ to demonstrate deliberate falsehood, if something is true you shouldn’t have legal recourse to the Laws of libel. Intrusion’s into some celeb’s private life is another matter altogether.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Hm hm hm hm, I dig it.
I’m looking forward to renaming “the streisand effect” to “the bca effect.”
October 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I’ve emailed the Times technical support about the link that doesn’t work in the article. But it’s Sunday and no one will see that before tomorrow morning.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Journalists should not be immune to libel and slander laws. However, truth should be an absolute defence.
It should not matter whether or not the BCA, for example, doesn’t like the use of the word “bogus”… I even think that in Singh’s case everyone agrees on the definition. Singh should need only to produce some evidence – say in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles demonstrating the ineffectiveness of chiropractic and the judge should be required to kick the case out of court and assess costs to the BCA.
Now, a journalist publishing untruths should be slapped down harder than the average joe, in the same way we’d slap lawyers for dispensing incorrect legal advice.
Of course, in a perfect world, there’d be no hunger or war either…
October 18th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The bloke should put out a donations page. I think the response would be significant – everyone wants to stick it to these friggin’ witch doctor conjurers. There – take that little piece of libel and chew on it!
October 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I don’t think it is libel to present facts it iis up to pesdoscientists to present the facts that prove what they say some may disagree but that is there right they should not file lawsuits to scilence there opponits if this keeps up Phill beter look out hes got these people mad at him for presenting facts witch he has a right to do It called freedom of speach
October 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Oh please: “says bloggers and scientists are increasingly reluctant to write anything critical for fear of ruin”, yes that’s so OBVIOUS, bloggers are just quaking in their boots and never, ever, say anything bad about anyone, boohoo. I hope Singh wins his appeal, but he’s English, right? Why didn’t he know about the draconian English libel laws before he wrote his article? Or did he do it EXACTLY because he knew what would happen? I honestly don’t know but I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy for him; all he’s going to lose is money, which he says he can afford. Perhaps it’s money well spent in publicizing his thoughts about quack claims? (publicity he might not otherwise have gotten?) Why didn’t he publish a peer-reviewed paper backing up his (almost certainly true) claims? That would have gotten around most if not ALL of the legal difficulties.
If people really truly feel inclined to interfere in the Brits’ legal system I suggest your time and money would be much better spent fighting their Official Secrets Act, which has caused much more harm historically than their silly libel laws.
Of course, everyone has the right to pick their own causes and charities, but this is not going to be one of mine (says the card-carrying-member of the ACLU, and damn proud of it!).
October 19th, 2009 at 1:34 am
English libel law is a joke – and that’s long been known worldwide.
Its well overdue that the English justice system was changed for the better in this regard.
Given that England’s legal system is otherwise one of the sanest and best and a model for the rest of the Western world this is especially sad.
@ 13 Coolstar : I don’t get you. I may – indeed I do – also agree that The Official Secrets Act is also terrible but what does it have to do with this? Its not like you can only oppose one of these because you can (and I think should) oppose *both* y’know!
As for Simon Singh, I think he’s taken a stand for an important principle here and deserves our support for that. I’m really not sure why you, Coolstar, seem so indifferent to this Freedom of Expression, Freedom to speak truth to power – & to woo quackers & to the public, issue esp. if you are a proud ACLU member. Sorry Coolstar but I really don’t undersand what you are trying to say / imply here.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:59 am
FFS Coolstar, how do you manage to walk around with your foot stuck so firmly in your mouth? You clearly know nothing whatsoever about this case, so try doing just a tiny bit of research before you post again.
Try this for starters: An Intrepid Ragged Band of Bloggers
October 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Regarding the issues of free speech and blasphemy – check out Jonathan Turley’s article in USA Today regarding what the Obama administration is doing. Key sentence – “This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.”
Further on – “It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.”
Why is Obama turning into such a coward?
October 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
@ Evolving Squid
In the United States truth is an absolute defense in Libel cases. I can’t say that I’m an expert on British law though.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
@ The Geek:
Even if truth were an absolute defense in Britain, the case hinges on the definition of the word “bogus”, which the BCA claimed, and a judge agreed, meant knowingly false. That allowed them to interpret the article as SS saying that the chiropractors were making a claim that they knew to be false. In my opinion, that’s probably exactly the case, but it wasn’t what SS meant when he used the word. He simply meant that the claim that childhood illnesses can be treated with chiropractic is untrue. The latter is provable with science, or better yet the lack of it. That the chiros were intentionally lying would be virtually impossible for SS to prove.
His recent win for a right to appeal gives him the ability to challenge this interpretation of the word, on which the whole case hinges.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:07 am
[...] 1. Larian LeQuella Says: October 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Is there an e-mail campaign out there?
I have no problem sending them a personal e-mail for the BCA to ignore, asking them to stop promoting therapies they know to be bogus but first I’d like to know of any organised effort.