The over-sensitive English libel laws have he effect of suppressing valid and important criticism — sign the petition to have them changed!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The over-sensitive English libel laws have he effect of suppressing valid and important criticism — sign the petition to have them changed!
Thank you for raising this here. I have signed the petition and sent the accompanying message to my MP.
Done.
I signed it. It’d take a lot of fleecing to recover the costs if some infidels should decide to sue Me.
Signed it last week.
Just signed it and I will pass the word.
Come on, people, let’s Pharyngulate this sucker!
Signed it. This isn’t Pharyngulation: this is “Hey, I exist, and I have an opinion I want to be heard!”
While I applaud their cause, why are they not using the special petition website that the government specially set up for people to petition for stuff like this?
“While I applaud their cause, why are they not using the special petition website that the government specially set up for people to petition for stuff like this?”
Because the amount of trivial dross that gets onto the “official” site hides anything meaningful, possibly.
Anyway, the official site is only there to show that “We are listening to the people” so that they don’t have to.
Do online petitions actually do any good? Are they any more or less effective than traditional pen-n-paper ones?
Yeah, you’re right they never get noticed. That one about apologizing to Alan Turing just disappeared and was never seen again.
I never said they don’t get noticed. I wasn’t aware of any that had a significant impact. I see requests to sign online petitions all over the web. I wasn’t sure if they had any more impact than the online polls that get Pharyngulated.
Signed it!
Popey can go stuff himself.
Sir Eccles #10:
That one actually had an effect. Not say that I think many do, however.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8249792.stm
I’ll sign it, although there’s a couple of things that confuse me:
1. Do I list “country” as the US, since I live here, or the UK, since I’m a British citizen?
2. Why English libel laws? That would be British libel laws, surely? Unless there’s a different law applicable in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland…?
Scottish libel law is different. The English (and Welsh) libel laws cause the problem.
See Jack of Kent for more information.
Sorry, scroll down the comments on that link for the clarrification that “…It is English (and Welsh) libel law. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems…”
I tried to sign, but got a DNS error from the link.
I’d love to sign, but I’m afraid my doing so won’t have as much impact until after the Brits take the Colonies back.
What’s the status on that, by the way ?
@ Bernard Bumner #15/16 – thanks for the clarification. I understood that Scottish law can be different, but didn’t know whether that was the case here.
Done.
Signed. I’m also telling all my friends (some of whom actually publish what they write) as well.
This is the kind of dickheadism that needs to be suppressed.
Signed and did some shameless pimping on my moblog.
I have signed and I
bulliedsuccessfully urged my wife and daughter to sign as well.…have “the” effect.
:)
Signed it and sent email to my MP.
@DLC #18 – I’m sure there’s an online petition for that too!
Wow.
You’re asking your audience to sign an online petition. To quote Rocky the Squirrel, ‘Bullwinkle, that never works.’
Online petitions are the equivalent of those traffic light buttons in New York City and have the same functionality. You take out your frustration by giving out your personal information saying you’re behind a particular cause.
How is this any different than theists who believe in healing touch or burying a statue of a Christian saint will get their home sold more quickly than their neighbor’s home. I thought you were rational. Can you tell me a single instance where signing an online petition was more powerful than some concept of prayer?
Nightmare mode: It has to be for a cause greater by an order of magnitude than ‘Bring back my lame SF show called Lampyridae!!!’
dissent:
-we have no evidence that “libel tourism” is an actual social phenomenon. Similar to calls for tort reform in the states when the evidence doesn’t show a marked increase in litigation. Aside from anecdotes telling stories of people coming to England to sue for damages, signs of a problem could easily be (and probably are) overplayed.
(and considering the amount of libel that does go on, especially on the blogosphere, then the fact that so few cases are litigated should actually point to the conclusion of how the tort is predominantly underused, not overused)
-bloggers and writers haven’t exhausted their options. Aside from the obvious “get legal advice before you make a career of high criticism”, and take more time to ensure what you allege is true, there is also defamation insurance to look into. That Singh barreled into trouble without this (I assume?) may point to a better conclusion – cover your bases before you go out on a limb. And if insurance is getting in the way, why is the issue not insurance reform? Finally, if you are being commissioned to write a book, article, post, etc, then put an indemnity clause into your contract.
-for matters of extreme public interest, there already exists the defence of qualified privilege that grants substantial leeway provided the statement wasn’t malicious. Then there’s fair comment, responsible journalism. We may be really talking about marginal and/or malicious cases here.
-Singh doesn’t seem to be too impartial about this. He wants vindication in as many ways possible. Is he a reliable source on the state of the law?
—
defamation is a civil injury. Not everyone places the same value on reputations that suffer, which is why all matters are case by case, and results may vary according to who is the finder of fact. And as with all civil actions, there are serious deterrents to bringing frivolous claims. I think if there was any real need for legislative intervention, then it would be in the area of capping damages – upholding an injury has been found, but reducing the liability. But again, we haven’t been presented with enough evidence to say that is necessary.
at the very least, I would hope their site provided more information to make an informed decision.
@hepatod
As ianmhor mentioned above, there is one well-publicized case where an online petition did help right a serious miscarriage of justice: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8249792.stm
As the BBC article points out, though, there were some serious heavy hitters (Dawkins, for instance) throwing their weight behind it. If this petition can muster that kind of firepower, it could have an impact.
I’m skeptical of most online petitions’ efficacy, but who knows? This petition could make a difference as well. I hope it does. There is some serious repercussions for free speech as well as honest scientific inquiry at stake. Just ask Simon Singh.
IMO, it probably would make more of a difference to donate directly to Coalition for Libel Reform (http://www.justgiving.com/libelreform), but I’ve been wrong before.
@frankosaurs:
Dude, are you even familiar with the case?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/03/singh-the-blues/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=555
Of course he’s not impartial. He wrote the truth about chiropractic and rather than present scientific evidence to counter, the BSA is trying to sue him into oblivion. From what I’ve read about British libel law, he’s right on the money.
Acronym fail @ 29: Should be BCA, not BSA.
Thanks for the article (though it’s best to actually cite the case). So what were the reasons Singh lost?
-reversed burden of proof: however, this doesn’t really mean much. The standard is still balance of probabilities. Where the burden comes in is where it is impossible to tell whose side is more convincing, so the presumption of falsity carries the day. I don’t know if this case was so paper-thin that this was a real consideration (if it was, then there’s no use appealing – appellate courts don’t overrule findings unless there is a gross error of fact).
-re: the judge erred in interpreting “bogus” to mean something fraudulent. The first thing to notice is that the article writer’s insistence that Singh “didn’t really mean it” is irrelevant. The test is the ordinary meaning of the words, not intent. Secondly, even if the judge did err that “bogus” isn’t defamatory by the ordinary meaning test, then that’s a matter of judicial discretion. What can one say? It’s a judgment call, and what is and isn’t defamatory isn’t a matter of applying a math formula. One can’t say that bogus obviously isn’t defamatory.
-the reason the test is “ordinary meaning” is that what’s at stake is being lowered in the eyes of the community. So the judge has to consider not what the person wrote thought, but what readers would think, and the kind of impressions about the BCA they could form.
What can I tell you. If you’re reading people who don’t understand the law, chances increase that you’ll get a negative opinion about the result. But don’t fret, there are usually legal reform societies that have expert opinions on ways in which laws can and should be changed. They usually have the best success on persuading legislatures over technical areas of law.
but to make things clear, that BCA pursued litigation really doesn’t clear their name. not disputing the application of law is one thing, but thinking BCA is “in the right” as a result is another.
Thanks to Frankosaurus for a modicum of caution.
However, Singh hasn’t lost anything yet. There has been a preliminary decision that a) his article is not excepted from the claim by virtue of being fair comment; and b) bogus means ‘fraudulent’, or at least carries that meaning among others. Singh sought permission to appeal against that decision, and has been given permission to do so.
I want those of you who have rushed off to sign the petition to ask yourself: why did I do that? Is it because you actually have any understanding of English libel law and have given proper consideration to which elements thereof, if any, need to be reformed? Or is it because some people you admire, and a guy who’s fighting off an attack by an organisation you despise, have suggested it is a thing you ought to do?
My mother used to ask me, from time to time and in a somewhat long-suffering tone: “…and if your friend suggested you should jump in front of a car, would you do that too?”
Fortunately, English laws aren’t changed by popular demand, otherwise we’d have the death penalty, public floggings, and concentration camps for illegal immigrants. So, sign away!
Absolute bollocks. Those fucking anecdotes are the examples of English libe law being abused. The statistics show that London is the “libel capital of the world”, and even Lord Judge and Jack Straw acknowledge the problem.
As for Simon Singh; there are two separate issues at stake, and Simon Singh has been very careful to point that out.
The first of them is that, as in his particular case, libel accusations can be used to attempt to silence ciritics, simply because of the enormous cost of defending a libel case.
The second is that English law – not uniquely – does allow libel tourism by virtue of the fact that that writs can be issued on the basis of only minor British interests. (The fact that defence is so costly only serves to encourage claims in the UK, because 90% of cases succeed.) This is of particular relevence in a world where stories so easily circle the globe.
Actually, I think you’ll find that Engilsh laws are often changed on the back of public demand, and not least under the present government.
Still, the idea that a popular movement is necessarily bankrupt is a stupid and patronising one. There is popular support because more and more coverage has highlighted the abuse of English libel laws to protect interests, rather than address defamation.
The arguments for change are actually very simple, and they have very little to do with the spirit or technicalities of the law. In actual fact, they almost entirely revolve around shoddy legal practice and the abuse of that spirit, rather than real legal issues.
Equating changing outmoded and dangerous libel laws with the restoration of capital punishment is moronic. Now fuck off and stop patronising people, because you have no idea of how much thought htey have or have not given to the matter.
Mmmm, that’s a very good point. Touché.
I’m not sure there is popular support. Not in the way, for example, that people were shrieking that something must be done dangerous dogs or about ‘video nasties’.
What shoddy legal practice? The law is coming into disrepute because of forum shopping, and to that extent I would probably support reform that prevented foreign claimants making claims in England in respect of defamatory publications or statements which do not originate in this country, or something like that.
For every defendant who says “My wholly legitimate criticism is being suppressed by someone’s abuse of the libel laws” there is, don’t forget, a claimant who can equally legitimately say “My legitimate interests are being harmed by this other person’s criticism, which I do not accept are legitimate at all, fortunately I am protected by libel laws.”
Much of the commentary here seems predicated on the fact that many people have pre-judged this issue (me among them, as a matter of fact) as holding the opinion that chiropractic is a ridiculous bunch of tripe. However, if he wishes to advance the argument that chiropracters are frauds, because they know or ought to know that their treatments are ineffective and or dangerous, then it’s entirely reasonable for the law to say that a journalist needs to be able to prove that this is true. If Mr Singh had only said: “There isn’t a shred of proper scientific evidence in favour of the practice of chiropractic”, THEN it might be a scientific question and he (and the others who so claim) might be justified in arguing that in his case libel laws are stifling scientific enquiry.
Well, don’t do it. I didn’t.
Ermm… and that’s why I asked a question. No doubt you got stuck with being annoyed and angry and missed that bit.
If you have simple arguments that the reversing the burden of proof in libel cases would bring benefits, I’d love to read them.
defides:
I wonder whether you’re using prejudge in its normal meaning.
I’m certainly not pre-judging it.
Well, if it wasn’t a loaded question, then I withdraw my previous advice to fuck off. Frankly, it was the patronising, concerned tone that led me to believe that you were offering advice where none was needed.
As it is, you obviously had a good reason for asking the question. Obviously.
Sorry, I thought you mentioned it.
I see no evidence of that. People may have an opinion on the state of the case, but that doesn’t suggest prejudgement, not in the least.
Did you read the original article? Here is the relevant part.
1) The shoddy legal practice of law firms using writs and injunctions (related issues) to protect their clients’ business interests in cases where defamation has not occured. Of litigation being the first response because they know that the defendent is more likely than not to settle the issue before it reaches court, simply because of the costs of winning, let alone losing, a libel case.
2) The shoddy legal practice of forum shopping, exploiting laws which may effectively punish someone in a juridiction within which few or no people are aware of the allegedly defamatory statements.
The spirit of the libel laws is clearly to protect from defamation, but there are clearly legal practices which allow the law to be used to prevent critique (even if only theoretically, thereby circumventing the issue of whether or not it happens, although it does happen).
Dear PZ, thanks for spreading the word – it is very much appreciated.
I can see why some people feel that a petition will not change anything, but I am much more optomistic.
Since the petition started, there has already been a radical government proposal to effectively cut the cost of libel in half. English libel trials will still cost 70 times more than mainland Europe (roughly $1,000,000), but it is a big step forward. More steps are in the pipeline.
Moreover, the Ministry has set up a libel reform working group that has already met twice and which will report in March.
Finally, the petition encourages Members of Parliament to sign an Early Day Motion in favaour of libel reform. Of the 869 current EDMs, the libel reform EDM is number 7 in terms of popularity, which will push it up the goverment’s agenda.
I can assure you that the politicians are listening. We just need to shout loudly enough so that they go ahead and start changing English libel laws.
@ Simon Singh #38,
Ask for more science funding whilst your there. Hey, it can’t hurt.
Louis
Already signed it (as an ex-pat Brit in Los Angeles), also tapped others to sign it. Thanks for publicizing the issue further.
I think if you want to find out about just how badly the English libel laws are abused by the rich and powerful (and generally corrupt), you could do worse than ask Ian Hislop.
I remember watching an interview in which he pointed out the history of libel suits against him and Private Eye, and how generally speaking six months after the courts returned a guilty verdict, the supposedly libellous statements turned out to be true.
He was asked whether he ever got back the monetary fines he’d paid, since the truth of what he had exposed had become evident. The answer was no. Another reason to overhaul such an atrocious system.
Funny, I was thinking about this during the Blasphemy talk in Dublin – that this was a good example of how weak laws in one country can affect people in other countries, something the framers of the blasphemy law might well bear in mind.
I think so. I’m talking about prejudging the correctness of the complaint made by Simon Singh and the justness of the petition to change the libel laws. My feeling is that many people jump from ‘I agree with Simon Singh (about chiropractic) and with PZ (about most things) so I guess they must be right about English libel laws.
You must call it as you see it. I read a whole bunch of people (not only here, but at RD.org), most of whom will have had no other knowledge of English libel laws, and not apparently addressing themselves to the subtleties and complexities, saying “Yay! I signed the petition!” and I can’t see why they would do that. Like many people, I get emails from friends and contacts asking me to sign up for this or that, and I simply don’t do it, unless I’m sufficiently interested to investigate further and decide whether or not I should do as I’m asked.
I mentioned it. I didn’t draw the parallel you inferred.
Thanks. In fact, I read the article months ago. The claim essentially comes down to the use of the word ‘bogus’. The BCA essentially says ‘that word means ‘fraudulent…etc’, and Singh says ‘No, no; that’s not what I meant.’ Well, shit Sherlock, both the best and the worst dictionaries show that the BCA is right on that one. So Singh, instead of saying ‘Chiropractic is, scientifically speaking, rubbish’, actually said ‘chiropracters are charlatans’. The two are very different, and it’s what makes it ‘bogus’ for him to claim – as he seems to be doing – that the BCA is using libel law to try to settle an essentially scientific question.
All this business about how expensive it is also seems to me to be a smokescreen. The Pre-action protocol means (almost certainly) that he would have had the opportunity to withdraw (and probably apologise for) the word in question, leaving the science of his article intact but the allegedly libellous comment excised. If he’d chosen that route, he and his newspaper almost certainly wouldn’t be at risk of incurring substantial costs which they cannot recover at the end of the proceedings.
You see, I agree with that – but none of it is shoddy legal practice (since I infer that by that you mean shoddy practice by legal professionals). The lawyer tells the client what its legal position is, and what its legal options are. It would be professional negligence not to explain the impact that costs might have on the other side’s willingness or ability to defend the claim. It is then up to the client to decide which option to follow. That might all take place in a regrettable legal environment; but it’s not shoddy on the part of the lawyers.
At the moment, I am restricting my remarks to Simon Singh’s dispute. He clearly cannot make that accusation in respect of his situation; he is English, the BCA is British, and the Guardian is published in London.
Even so, forum shopping (where it is available) again is the choice of the client.
Agreed. The law can also be used to prevent people doing all sorts of things that otherwise they ought to be able to do, by putting them ‘in terrorem’ (as we lawyers say) of incurring crippling costs. I see no special reason why libel laws should be subject to vigorous attack on this basis when other laws are not. It’s a universal problem of litigation, rather than of individual principles of private law.
(Examples: putting obstacles in a right of way knowing that the only way to put a stop to it is to apply for an injunction, and thereby preventing the exercise of the right; claiming an order under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in order to get a bigger share of the estate [the sol will have to advise that the vast majority of such cases settle, meaning that making the claim is far less risky for the claimant than defending it is for the other side]; there are more.)
The Brits with their libel laws can’t afford to laugh too hard at us Irish with our blasphemy law…
However, if Brit libel laws can attract “libel tourism”, I hope Ireland doesn’t get “blasphemy tourism”…
@No More Mr. Nice Guy #43
“The Brits with their libel laws can’t afford to laugh too hard at us Irish with our blasphemy law…”
Well, not too hard, maybe – but it’s worth bearing in mind that a libel law is a useful component of a free society (protecting people against published lies about them), whereas a blasphemy law is essentially a comedy libel law – a libel law in which you’re not allowed to publish a certain category of lies and truths about people who are themselves lies.
No-one’s suggesting that the UK shouldn’t have a libel law – we just probably shouldn’t have this one.