Comments on: Libel Reform campaign now online!

By: Anders

Anders — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:36:50 +0000

Descriptions around the net from when it happened, and a discussion on Righteous Indignation.

Beryl corrected my memory though – I was only half right. He is in trouble because he used the word ‘bogus’, and the court chose to interpret that as an accusation of fraud. He is in trouble not for saying homeopathy doesn’t work, but because his words were interpreted strangely.

This makes sense since Richard Dawkins and many others have said that it doesn’t work on national television, and they’re not getting sued.

By: ndt

ndt — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:01:27 +0000

Anders Says:
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am

I was under the impression that the law suit wasn’t because he said homeopathy didn’t work, it was because he said the practitioners knew it didn’t work so they were knowingly perpetrating a fraud.

Your impression is wrong. Where did you hear that?

By: Kurt_eh

Kurt_eh — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:28:33 +0000

Looks like the Libel Laws are changing in Canada too:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/23/ottawa-supreme-court-libel-bloggers-pr.html

By: Glen

Glen — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:08:54 +0000

The Supreme Court of Canada made rulings today (or yesterday, depending on where you are) that allows “it was in the public interest, and I did my best to check the facts” as a valid argument against libel suits. If only the British courts would do the same, this whole mess could be over in an instant….

Curiously, one of the rulings said that the Canadian legal system is *more* restrictive than the UK one in this respect.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/12/22/supreme-court-libel-responsible-journalism-citizen-star.html

By: Beryl

Beryl — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:13:44 +0000

Anders, Singh said, roughly, that chiropractors were pushing “bogus” treatments. The courts chose to interpret that as accusing the chiropractors of *knowing* that their treatments don’t work. Only in a very plaintiff-friendly system does that kind of possible meaning get you in trouble. And English defamation law is a huge international issue, as England has attracted a lot of legal tourism as the most favorable possible venue.

By: Michael Suttkus, II

Michael Suttkus, II — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:58:08 +0000

Why not have every scientist who has ever done a study showing Homeopathy to be a joke, sue all the homeopaths? After all, every idiot who claims magic water works is directly accusing all those hard working scientists of lying.

By: Jon B

Jon B — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:05:07 +0000

A certain multi-national fast food chain also took advantage of Britain’s libel laws to shut down protesters who were (gasp!) printing terrible, awful, true things about the nutritional value and growing conditions of the food served there. It worked until the bad PR blew up in the fast food chain’s face and they ceased their actions.

By: Radwaste

Radwaste — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:29:07 +0000

“and be VERY careful about counter-arguments saying how internationally important Brit libel law reform is”

So read my earlier link. An American author, not even sold in brick/mortar, gets sued for downloads in the UK.

Say anything recently? I’ll sue!

By: diogenes

diogenes — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:35:36 +0000

If the Brits want to do something about their libel laws, more power to them. Personally, I see no reason why an average American should be even WANTED on a petition to help them do this any more than an average Brit should be wanted on a petition to reform the American electoral college. (and be VERY careful about counter-arguments saying how internationally important Brit libel law reform is)

By: Anders

Anders — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:19:57 +0000

I was under the impression that the law suit wasn’t because he said homeopathy didn’t work, it was because he said the practitioners knew it didn’t work so they were knowingly perpetrating a fraud.

To be fair, if this is the case, I don’t have a problem with such laws.

And let’s not abandon libel laws completely. In the US, it is even fair game to accuse people of committing crimes (climate fraud, presidential murderers etc.) without anyone being able to do anything about it. I actually think it’s ok to not be allowed to accuse others of criminal activity without proof.

Now, if the suit is actually about saying homeopathy doesn’t work, that’s another story…..