Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Coates <kevin.coates@europemail.org>
Date: October 18, 2009 11:13:51 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Dangerous lawsuit in Britain (open letter)
For IP, if you wish.
Recent developments suggest that things might be looking up.
Simon Singh, the defendant, has been granted leave to appeal, including on the basis that the article was fair comment. The presiding judge described the first instance judgment as "legally erroneous" and also referred to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A summary / commentary is here:
Singh has been quoted in the press - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/simon-singh-chiropractors-appeal - as saying that this was the "best possible result" (so far at least).
--
Kevin
Email: kevin.coates@europemail.org
US mobile: 1.917.975.3552
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 18:19, Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: October 18, 2009 17:34:12 EDT
To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, dewayne@warpspeed.com, dave@farber.net
Subject: Dangerous lawsuit in Britain (open letter)"The law has no place in scientific disputes"
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334/
We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel
laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific
evidence.
The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The
scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position
about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open
discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the
mainstream media.
Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and
other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure
or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to
criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these
views.
English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can
severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It
is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against
writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can
afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the
English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being
viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.
Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the
cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed
journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for
complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a
chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers
from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting
products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and
merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.
The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence;
the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the
BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of
the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and
medical evidence.
--
Kevin
Email: kevin.coates@europemail.org
US mobile: 1.917.975.3552