[LINK] Ars: 'UK science journalist wins libel appeal'

[Roger Clarke]

[It's ugly enough that legal entities can sue individuals for defamation.

[It would be particularly nasty if individuals who criticise 
organisations were required to prove their case in a court of law.

[Fortunately, there are some legal precedents supporting the 
proposition that courts are not the appropriate place for arguing 
about 'scientific controversies'.]


UK science journalist wins libel appeal
By John Timmer
Ars Technica
1 April 2010 (pm)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/uk-science-journalists-wins-libel-appeal.ars

Recently, we reported on UK science journalist Simon Singh's decision 
to put his career on hold in order to devote his time to defending 
himself against a libel suit brought by the British Chiropractic 
Association. The BCA was upset that Singh had labeled some of its 
claims "bogus," and brought suit against him using the UK's libel 
laws. A preliminary decision in the case would have required Singh to 
demonstrate that the BCA was knowingly engaged in making false 
claims, a difficult standard to meet. That ruling, however, has now 
been overturned on appeal.

Many of Singh's supporters had argued that the case could set a 
precedent where anyone criticizing a scientific claim would risk 
being dragged into court. The new decision explicitly recognizes 
this, stating, "the unhappy impression has been created that this is 
an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics." It also makes 
reference to the imprisonment of Galileo before quoting a decision by 
a US judge, who wrote, "Scientific controversies must be settled by 
the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation... 
More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory 
models-not larger awards of damages-mark the path towards superior 
understanding of the world around us."

Operating with the conclusion that courts aren't the appropriate 
venue for settling scientific disputes, the Lord Chief Justice's 
decision indicates that a scientific dispute is precisely what is at 
issue here. Singh's defense team has indicated it is prepared to 
present a series of studies supporting his claims; the BCA, likewise, 
has a similar set of studies. Thus, the issue of whether Singh's use 
of the phrase "not a jot of evidence" will clearly come down to a 
scientific debate about the quality of the evidence.

Returning to the issue at hand, one of libel, the court concludes 
that the phrase at issue is Singh's opinion, formed by his scientific 
evaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, he does not have to defend 
it as factual under libel law under the UK's defense of fair comment 
principle, which the court considers a "bulwark of free speech." This 
makes Singh's defense far easier, and has left the BCA debating 
whether to continue the case.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University