Slashdot Mirror

I think that you maybe missed the substantial reform of libel law that happened in the wake of the Simon Singh case (see http://www.libelreform.org/ and https://www.theguardian.com/la...).

The UK still has less of a legal emphasis on protecting free speech than the US does and that definitely tips things more in favour of the accuser than the accused (relative to the US) but the libel reform bill addressed that balance somewhat and brought libel cases into alignment with other UK law in forcing an innocent-until-proven-guilty assumption.

In short - things are pretty much closer to an even balance between accuser and accused now with more protections for uneven fights between individuals and corporate entities and special protections for scientific publications.

The truth is not a defense if the truth is damaging. I.e. yes you may tell everyone the truth about someone, but if that person suffers damage as a result of that, you are still liable for the damage.

The judge can decide that *if* there was a compelling reason for the truth to be stated (such as the public interest), you aren't liable for the damage. But it's not a solid 100% defense, no.

In 2013 the libel laws were reformed as described above with the Defamation Act of 2013 - before that, yes, things were awful.

"The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced new protections for publishers. In particular, the public interest defence at s.4 of the Act offers a defence in libel when the publisher believed that the matter was in the public interest. The legislation should give publishers new confidence and reduce the occurrence of self-censorship." - from http://www.libelreform.org/

I asked Simon about this at the Brighton Skeptics in the Pub meeting a few weeks ago, and he said that he prefers people to donate to The Libel Reform Campaign, who are trying to fix the UK law which allows this kind of lawsuit to happen.

IANAL but from what I recall the libel law in the UK is horrifically broken and needs amending and the following is true; 1) If any part of a publication is printed or reprinted in the UK you have a case for libel, and whilst the definitions of printed have changed so it includes electronic media this crazy system has not. 2) You are under a reverse burden of proof, if I say David Blaine is a gitwizard it's up to me to prove that he is indeed a gitwizard, he can just sit back smile polietely and I have to do all the work. 3) Indeed even if I can prove David Blaine is a gitwizard I might still be fined for having caused damage. http://www.libelreform.org/ has more details on how broken UK libel law is.

As to the current Con/Dem government doing anything about these wider abuses, I remain very sceptical. Previous Tory governments have been equally as big on repressive legislation as the last Labour government was. And as everybody knows, politicians are generally loathe to give up any powers unless forced to by the population.

Well, the coalition document promises a "great repeal\freedom bill" and more regulation on CCTV and a review of the libel laws (as a side note, Lord Leicester has just introduced a libel reform bill - http://www.libelreform.org/news - in light of their pledge, I'm hoping that it will get government backing) amongst other things - full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

The relevant section for those who don't want to click on the link:

10. Civil liberties
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
A freedom or great repeal bill;
The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point database;
Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission;
The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency;
Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database;
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury;
The restoration of rights to non-violent protest;
The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech;
Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation;
Further regulation of CCTV;
Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason;
A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

The original "New Scientist" article can be found here:

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18731-simon-singh-the-libel-fight-goes-on.html

There is a petition you can sign, anyone, from any country, here (also linked to in the article):

  http://libelreform.org/sign

Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today. And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal

You got to posting the important link before me, so let me instead say that even if Simon wins this round there is still a whole lot more work to be done; firstly, this is only the appeal against the previous judge's decision of what was meant by his use of the word 'bogus', and a win here will just make the rest of the case easier to fight. Secondly, Britain still lacks a proper 'public interest' defense in these sorts of cases, and that is why it is important to support full and considered libel reform so that this ridiculous charade does not have to be repeated, at enormous expense, for every individual who would reasonably criticise his peers.

I wish I could mod you up, but I only have infinitely diluted mod points left.
Anyway, there's also a petition going for libel reform. Check it out at http://www.libelreform.org/ .Sign and/or donate if you support their cause!

Real scientists will laugh at you for claiming CO2 is an issue,

Where can I read their papers? If they are real scientists they must have published their findings, right?

I'll see your enlightened video link and raise you one.

Sorry, but videos made by people that fabricated their data and misquoted scientists in a fraudulent way don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws after he complained, great way to react to criticism...

Just go watch the video I linked and the other ones in the series, they do a great job of explaining many common climate myth, both from the skeptics side as well as the believers. And if you have any info explaining the errors in the video I linked I would love to read them.

Oh I know, the guys that resigned their positions at the IPCC are still credited by the IPCC as belonging to the 2500 scientists. I mean clearly the guys in the video I linked to are idiots, I mean, who the hell would listen to multiple university professors anyway right? Let alone the countless sources they referenced in the interviews.

I too found it humorous that the one professor had to sue the IPCC to get his name removed from their list after they refused to present his findings (which were contrary to their position that AGW is real), and tried to claim he supported their lies.

Real scientists will laugh at you for claiming CO2 is an issue,

Where can I read their papers? If they are real scientists they must have published their findings, right?

I'll see your enlightened video link and raise you one.

Sorry, but videos made by people that fabricated their data and misquoted scientists in a fraudulent way don't impress me much. They even tried to sue the misquoted scientist with the notorious UK libel laws after he complained, great way to react to criticism...

Just go watch the video I linked and the other ones in the series, they do a great job of explaining many common climate myth, both from the skeptics side as well as the believers. And if you have any info explaining the errors in the video I linked I would love to read them.

I agree. What the article fails to mention is why these principles have fallen by the wayside.
1) Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case. The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much. This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state. As is clear even from the wording of the law, it wasn't designed to uphold justice, the nod at the end notwithstanding, but to keep things quiet, which was in the best interest of the king. Nowadays, in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry, rather than by the king for the king, the principle of barratry has no place.
2) Maintenance (and thus champetry) makes it impossible for charities to for example support people who are in a protracted legal battle with an organisation with much deeper pockets. Again, we can see that this is a very useful law for the aristocracy but not for the common people.
Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability, and where it served justice, it only did so as a means to that end. Although vestiges of that past are still visible in our laws today, the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenry. If there are laws that don't serve this end* they should be changed or abolished.
*Previously on Slashdot:
UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences
In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech
A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too
In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science
And you can help make the world a better place: Libel Reform Campaign

"Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though" I think A. C. Clarke would disargee.

I think Arthur C. Clarke understood the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This being News for Nerds I assumed you would too. Sorry.

I gave an example of a just application of the law, can you give an example of an unjust case or are you just waving your hands? As far as I understand it the UK laws are similar to Aussie laws, the defendant must show why they believe the accusation to be true. This does not mean I can't print a derogatory opinion, it means I can't fabricate evidence and make baseless accusations without risking a law suit. In otherwords, it's simply extending the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" into the fourth estate.

Pretty much all civilised countries have libel laws that work well for the affluent when they have genuinely been libelled. The problem is for the less affluent person wrongly accused of libel. Actual cases are, of course, difficult to cite because they are by their nature disputed. But the fact that the UK is a destination for libel tourism does suggest that either it's easier to win a case here than elsewhere or that damages will be higher. Of course, we might be an outlier because we're leading the way to a better future, but for those of us who believe in free exchange of ideas it does look rather more as if something is seriously wrong.