Slashdot Mirror
In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science
Geoffrey.landis writes 'In Britain, libel laws are censoring the ability of journalists to write stories about bogus science. Simon Singh, a Ph.D. physicist and author of several best-selling popular-science books, is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits. A year earlier, writer Ben Goldacre faced a libel suit for an article critical of Matthias Rath, who claimed that vitamin supplements can treat HIV and AIDS in place of conventional drugs like anti-retrovirals. In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence — any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true. Journalists are running scared.'
Guess I'm going to be sued now ... or at least modded down into oblivion! ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Perhaps Singh should argue that in calling the treatments bogus, he could not have libeled the British Chiropractic Association because the BCA is not a treatment, it is an organization. Thus, Singh could only have libeled the BCA (i.e., the members of the BCA) if they did not, in fact, promote such treatements (bogus or otherwise). In other words, Singh can say that he attacked the message (the treatements), not the messenger (the BCA), and therefore cannot be found liable for libel against the BCA.
Would the British courts buy it? I have no idea (INABL). But it seems like a reasonable distinction, one that fits well into wide-spread notions of civility as well as the vigorous public discourse required for the advancement of science.
It fits better with the new Britain's Got Talent naming conventions.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Well, since I'm not living in a country where kooks and liars are given the benefit of the doubt, let me say quite publicly that chiropractors are frauds, along with naturopaths, healing touch types and all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety of those with more money than brains.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yeah, everyone in the world knows their legal system is busted. Why do they even have free speech, if they can silence people with lawsuits?
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence
Isn't Britain otherwise pretty anal about the presumption of innocence, to the point that accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press? Why the huge difference for libel?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
McDonalds used to sue people who claimed that their food wasn't very healthy, until the McLibel two took them one, and won on most of the points. McDonalds won on a few minor points but decided not to enforce the judgement as that would just give them even worse publicity.
The statement "there is no scientific proof" is not provable; it is only disprovable by presenting the scientific proof. Proving absence is very difficult; e.g prove there is no god.
Coincidently, Ben Goldacre was presenting at the Royal Institution today on "Bad Science" - poor media reporting of science. You can view the stream from tomorrow afternoon at The Times Higher Education website: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html . Event details for the RI debate here: http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=948
a Chiropractor is just a masseuse with a diploma and an ego
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This seems to be far outdated. Why don't the journalists and media companies simply lobby the legislature to pass a law declaring that the burden of evidence in libel and slander cases falls on the accuser?
It's clearly the more just method, and it works surprisingly well in the US. It's not like there would be popular opposition to such a change. And anybody who complains is just a champagne-sipping bum, anyway!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
This isn't a problem that is new for Great Britain nor is it limited to journalists. Indeed, the problem has gotten to be so bad that it has given rise to so called "libel tourism" where people who want to sue for libel go out of their way to find some connection, no matter how tenuous to Great Britain, so that they can justify suing in British courts (especially English or Welsh courts. Scotland and N. Ireland are slightly more sane about these things). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism. This is having serious chilling effects on what is even published in the United States and other places far away from Britain.
where there is freedom and democracy
Oh wait....
Pax,
Philboyd Studge
sharia law is up next. A hallmark of a society experiencing a breakdown in the rule of law is a flurry of stupid, ineffective, unequal, and inconsistent laws with no consideration made for precedent.
I wonder if this (legal action from some party) is why publications usually state something along the lines of "However, X has not been shown to have any Y benefits in independent studies", rather than saying "X doesn't do Y".
I can understand why scientific publications don't; they're scientific, after all.. maybe the studies done had flaws, or were inconclusive, etc. But popular media does the same thing.
I watched a riveting documentary called McLibel a few weeks ago about activists who fought a McDonalds libel lawsuit to quell their inflammatory leaflet. Next to the harassment of photographers and the public security cameras it's yet another example of Britain's hostility toward those who exercise their individual rights.
Take the time to watch this important and humble film. It shows how capitalism unabashedly exploits plaintiff-friendly British laws to its own ends.
...in The People's Republic of Britannia.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Penn and Teller solved this by calling people assholes (not liars or scammers) and talking about their bullshit (not lies and scams). "Bullshit" is sufficiently (at least in US) vague and opinionated. So: call it bullshit science, written by asshole scientists.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
From TFA: "English libel law can have a global reach: there have been several high-profile examples of foreign journalists being sued for libel in the English courts over statements published on foreign websites or by foreign publishers"
Be careful what you say, or the Bobbies could be coming for you.
This is why every colony tried unsuccessfully to be completely free of them.
News at 11.
Liberty.
IANAL on either continent, but in the U.S. I'm pretty sure something that has been published has to be untrue in order to qualify for a libel suit. I've been following this case for a while because I loathe snake-oil in all its forms, and Singh seems to have not said anything that can be shown as positively false. We have certain expectations in peer-reviewed science and claims made by the BCA are not living up to that level of evidence.
"What the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This is disturbing, in that attacking beliefs is now a crime in Britain. Even when they're legitimate attacks on beliefs that can hurt people. This behavior by the state is retarded and should be fought at every turn. Skeptics must not waive their hand because of these unjust laws.
Eat sleep die
Good thing they aren't queers, having it off with the son of the Marquess of Queensberry. Or aging pre-Raphaelite art critics, with a morbid phobia of female genitalia.
There is a Santayana quote that is lurking just below the surface of my consciousness...
Ahhh. The slings and arrows suffered by persons of insurmountable genius.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true"
Well, maybe I'm taking it out if context, but it seems pretty reasonable to me. If you say something that seems wrong to other people, it is you the one that has to prove it correct, not the other way around (them proving that what you say is false). Reminds me of Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
If I were to write that Sean Connery kicks cats, that'd be libel. But if Sean Connery were to write a book about how kicking cats cures baldness, and I were to write that kicking cats *doesn't* cure baldness and anyone who says it does is a swindler, that can't be libel, can it? I can see how writing that Sean Connery is a swindler for making the claim, would be libel. But I wonder if it takes defaming a specific person to get a libel charge to stick, or if merely defaming an idea that a person is identified with is sufficient cause for a libel suit to be likely successful.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
So only write about real science. Don't give the snake oil salesmen any time or print.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I used to think that Britain was a pretty neat place to live. No more!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But it doesn't stop there. Britain's privacy laws also add a "need to know" basis for disseminating it to the public. Meaning that if you work for a politician who is having a secret affair and you reveal it to the media, you can get in trouble.
"In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence-- any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true."
If that is the case, then start suing back for their libelous claims. Replacing anti-retrovirals with supplements can fight AIDS? It doesn't take a doctor to know that claim is patently false and will have no proof to back it up. If the makers of bullshit medical cures are going to start suing people who call them on their bullshit, then start suing them for their bullshit claims.
Too often people, on both sides of the pond, forget that they can use the court system to protect themselves or protect their rights just the same way anyone can.
"[...] is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits."
That alone is not why Mr. Singh is being sued. The issue is specifically driven by his use of the word "bogus." The judge has taken it to mean "consciously dishonest." Not just peddling an ineffective treatment, but knowing that it's ineffective and still claiming otherwise. If Singh just claimed it was an ineffective treatment, he would not be criticizing the BCA directly, so it wouldn't be actionable... However, the judge and the BCA took him to be saying that the BCA are knowingly and intentionally dishonest in their promotion of the treatment.
I wouldn't think to interpret "bogus" in this way, but that seems to be the original meaning. I hope the judge realizes Singh was using it in a more modern sense, but if it's interpreted as the BCA claims, then it certainly explains how far this lawsuit has gone, and invalidates many of the comments here so far including the inflammatory summary. Singh can criticize the effectiveness of the treatments to his heart's content, as long as he doesn't accuse the BCA of fraud! You can read some more linguistic analysis of this lawsuit and the evolving meaning of "bogus" over at the Language Log.
It's like that here in the US if you question evolution.
If it really is "any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true", then the easiest way to fight back against the chiropractors is to file a libel suit against them for claiming chiropractic works. Unless of course I am missing something inane?
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true." ...
So why don't the chiropractic dudes have to prove the claim that their chiropraticic stuff works? Why isn't THEIR claim assumed to be false unless they prove it's true?
S. 449: Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 seems like an interesting response.
(c) Remedies-
(1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- In a cause of action described in subsection (a), if the court determines that the applicable writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law, the court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1) and if the conditions for release under that paragraph are satisfied, damages shall be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:
(A) The amount of any foreign judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit.
(B) The costs, including reasonable legal fees, attributable to the underlying foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.
(C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.
(d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the court or, if applicable, the jury determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the cause of action intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States by discouraging publishers or other media from publishing, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters from employing, retaining, or supporting, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the court may award treble damages.
Having RTFA, I can't help but consider it to be sadly biased.
e.g. One of the criticisms it makes is "in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true."
Maybe I missed something. Isn't this just a perfectly sensible extension of "innocent until proven guilty"? If I call you a thief and you sue me for libel, why should the burden of proof be on *you*, exactly?
What's more, it makes it sound like Singh has made the claim that chiropractors are completely bogus and can't help you with anything. When in fact, what they quote is that he argues there's no evidence to back up claims that getting your bones cracked can help with things like ear infections. Well, that's fair enough. I've been a chiropractor a few times for joint pain. They helped. Would I go to one for ear infections? Like hell would I.
In Britain, if you say "This person is a fake", you have to be able to prove it or you're liable for libel. If you say "I believe this person is a fake", that's a statement of opinion and not fact, and is held to a less rigorous standard. What, exactly, is wrong with this?
If this NY times article is an example of how good the journalism is outside of the UK, I'll stick to the current 'scared British journalists', thanks.
So.. it has come to this
beats getting screwed by a chiropractor
With those laws journalist will actually have to do some research
before writing an article.
As for Simon Singh, as Ph.D he should know the difference between a good and a bad hypothesis/claim.
A claim like "there is no evidence supporting claim x" is a very bad one.
Because in the real would you can never prove that something does not exist.
Better claims would be "As far as I know there is no evidence supporting claim x"
or better "The result of study y contradict claim x".
I think the conclusion is that Simon Singh was sued, because he used bogus science to write he's article on bogus science.
The minister for science and innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, has praised the high standards of science journalism at the sixth World Conference of Science Journalists in London yesterday. About 900 delegates attended the conference to congratulate each other on the remarkable quality of their press release transcription skills.
"The public relies on dependable science journalism to understand the forces shaping the modern world," said Lord Drayson. "Your work covering the things that really matter, such as pseudo-evolutionary explanations of current fashion trends, what will give us cancer this week, scaring the crap out of people over the MMR vaccine so their kids die of birth defects from measles instead and why fellatio is required for female health helps people make important choices about their lives and builds a vital gap between scientists and the public. I mean bridge."
He dismissed claims that typical science reporting primarily results in sensationalist and misleading headlines. "I wish more journalists would follow your example. The ones covering MPs' expenses certainly should have been working the way you do."
The speech was delivered to a backdrop of A-level students in lab coats. And bikinis.
Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro calculated that Lord Drayson's speech could power all of Britain for six months purely from harnessing the steam coming out of Ben Goldacreâ(TM)s ears.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Watch out for zebras
What the hell are you on about?
First man proves that god doesn't exist (see the Babel fish argument). Then he proceeds to prove that black is white, and gets killed in the next zebra crossing.
(I might have omitted one of mankind's great proofs. I humbly apologize if that is indeed the case.)
UK libel laws work exactly opposite to those in most other countries. In this case, Singh said that chiropractic was bogus, and is getting sued by the BCA. Now, in any sane country, the BCA would have to prove that A - BCA has to prove that Singh is wrong and and chiropractic is perfectly supported B - BCA has to prove that That Singh's statement caused damage. But, in with the UK's libel laws, you're basically guilty until proven innocent. In this case, when the BCA sued Singh, Singh has to prove either A - Singh has to prove that his statement was true B - Singh has to prove no damage was caused. Now, again, in a sane country, both A and B are impossible, the BCA would lose the lawsuit without Singh even getting a lawyer. But, in the UK, Singh needs his lawyers badly, because damage was caused, his only chance to win is to show that chiropractic is crap. A piece of cake if you're in a room with scientists, but when you're surrounded by lawyers and convincing a judge, it's not so east.
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
Nonsense. The US got its absolute defence being truth from the UK. If you prove what you said is true it's not libel.
assume the theory of chiropractic medicien is just nonsense
however,it is still possible that visits to the chiropracter can help, and even help more then the doctor: imaigne you have something like a sprained shoulder, where diagnosis and treatment requires carefull looking and TOUCHING of the joint; if the chiropracter spends more time doing a more careful exam, he might do a lot more good then an MD
the point is, life is complex, and real life is even more complex
Why do people keep thinking anecdotal evidence has any particular value at all? Science long ago abandoned the idea that reliable and useful data could be gained by "After I did X, Y happened".
We all do our best to observe the world around us, make valid observations, draw useful inferences, and so on. We all have our experiences, and try to make sense of them.
For example: I got chiropractic care following a car injury, and I tell you for a fact that chiropractic adjustment afforded me relief from pain. This is not anecdotal: this is an irrefutable fact. Why is it a fact? Because I -- I alone, and no one else -- am the sole authority on my experience (of pain, or anything else).
Now, if I make claims for other people -- other patients, other chiropractors -- based on my experience, that's anecdotal. If I extrapolate and say "All patients ..." or "All chiropractors ..." or "All chiropractic therapy ..." or "Chiropractory can also cure ...", then I'm making anecdotal statements.
But as for relief from my pain? Thank God for chiropractic adjustment! It really worked for me -- that's a fact.
-kgj
People think it because it often does. Survival of this species has partially depended upon the ability to reocgnize patterns and make decisions with limited information.
Good point.
See my related comments here.
-kgj
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence-- any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true. Journalist are running scared.'
The geek needs to remember that the "presumption of innocence" is a concept rooted in criminal law.
You can shoot someone - a fact not in dispute - and still be innocent of the crime of murder.
The libel case begins with something you said or published that can do a great deal of harm.
Truth arrives very late as a defense.
Courts were more concerned with maintaining the public peace and order than in the injury to the victim of a defamation. That will make more sense if you have been exposed to the excesses of AM talk radio, tabloid journalism or small-town gossip.
It is never enough to say that you made an innocent mistake. You have to argue that you made a "reasonable" mistake - or that what you said was true.
It asks a lot of a court to declare that something is presumptively true - meaning that it is beyond any reasonable argument.
The geek needs to ask whether he wants a court to go down that road - because it becomes very hard to turn back.
Note that Goldacre won against Rust. To me, and to most of /., I am sure that the case is obvious. But anybody is entitled to their day in court: you sould not be able to say that someone's claim is "obviously" false, no matter how much you respect the person being claimed against, as I respect Goldacre.
And the Singh/Chiropractors case is still in the courts: the chiropractors have not won.
I am afraid this is an example of the cost of Free Speech: the Black hats have as much freedom as the White Hats - and so it must be.
The case here is for a common defence fund for the White Hats. Private Eye, when it was fighting Sir James Goldsmith, had such a fund, known as the Goldenballs fund. Lots of people chucked in a tenner or so to support the defence costs of the good guys. And if anybody is running such a fund for Singh, or for any future complants against Goldacre, I will chip in. It would be good if their attackers knew that the defence was well funded.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Sounds like that needs to be changed.
Because their statement isn't the subject of a libel charge. (If it were, it would be presumed to be false in trying that charge, but since it almost certainly doesn't meet the other requirements to be libel, it wouldn't matter.)
That wouldn't work because the courts are already against him on the definition of the word "bogus". He argued that by "bogus" he simply meant that the treatment is ineffective. The courts interpret it as meaning that the BCA is deliberately defrauding people. The first thing Singh did was try and get a higher court to accept his definition; unfortunately, last i heard, his petition had failed.
Of course, it shouldn't really matter which definition you go by - the BCA certainly does encourage ineffective treatments for various ailments, and both their approach to the therapy and to the case has been dishonest at best and intentionally deceitful at worst. In any sane legal system he should be able to accuse them of being a bunch of snake-oil-selling half-wits, without having to worry about lawsuits. The UK system is in serious need of an overhaul. The only bright light here is that Singh may get a chance to appeal his case in front of a EU court and, depending on the outcome, may well create a basis for reforming the Brit libel laws.
Ain't that the truth!
--
all the other absurd lying pieces of worthless trash out there who profit off of the superstition and naivety
fyi, these guys actually believe in what they are doing. So they aren't lying - deluded is more accurate. It's an epistemological problem, something which many of us know little about.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If you will read the Wikipedia article on English law about libel, you will see that the truth is only an allowable defense there, not an absolute defense as it is in America. In fact, in an English court, the statements are assumed to be false unless the defense proves them to be true.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense. That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you.
I don't know whether the second part of that is true, but I do know that's not what an "affirmative defense" means. (Well, at least in the US. But the US gets its legal system largely from the UK, so I would be very surprised if it were different.) An affirmative defense is one the defendant has to raise himself.
Take self defense. During an assault trial, the prosecution is not required by default to show that the defendant did not act in self defense, just that he punched/kicked/threatened/whatever the victim. The defense attorney can't get up in the closing statement and go "the prosecution never presented any evidence that the defendant didn't act in self defense, thus you must acquit." If the defendant wants to use self defense as a defense, they must file a motion with the court (probably before the trial begins, but IANAL and that's the sort of detail I forget/didn't really know in the first place) and convince the judge that it has a reasonable chance of success before it will be allowed.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you read that truth is an affirmative defense in the UK and took away from that the interpretation that showing truth in court isn't sufficient for an acquittal, then there's a very good chance you're mistaken.
[citation needed]
Taking a somewhat informal survey here, parent have you ever been treated for a bad back by a chiropractor?
No huh? What a surprise....
You got it wrong. In the US, it suffices that you believe your statements to be true. In the UK, belief isn't enough, you need to prove that what you said is actually true (it's this shift of burden of proof that characterizes affirmative defence, afaik).
For example, if I were to say "Techno-vampire goes out to bars dressed in drag", you could sue me for slander. In the US, if I could make a reasonable argument that I believed you to be a drag queen, I'd be off the hook. In the UK, actual proof that you had been in a bar while dressing in drag would be needed to successfully defend myself.
What needs changing is techno-vampire's grasp of the law. A quick google search will prove he's just propagating a popular, but false, slashdot meme.
A quick look in a dictionary will show that "harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements." is meaningless; a defamatory statement is by definition false.
My guess is he's not a lawyer, has never been to Britain and couldn't even point to it on a map.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As someone else pointed out, proving the truth of the statement is a defense. But I wonder why there is any need to prove that the treatments are "bogus" to avoid liability. The treatments are not people. There is no harm if they are exposed to "hatred or ridicule." Singh did not say "I think that these treatments are bogus, and that BCA members should be subject to hatred and ridicule for promoting such treatements."
Members of (the now-defunct) Flat Earth Society do no harm to those who believe the world to be spherical, even though such members are saying that the common belief is erroneous. Nor are such members harmed by the millions of science books printed that proclaim the world to be spherical, even though those books say that the members have erroneous beliefs.
In separating the message from the messenger, one says "I think you are mistaken, but I do hold that others should hate or ridicule you for it (I just think they should not adopt your position)." And really, unless there is evidence that the messenger was attacked, simply saying "I think you are mistaken" implies the rest.
Of course, the law in Britain may allow a sensitive messenger to recover, even when the message, not the messenger, was attacked. Britain's libel laws have previously come under attack before for "discouraging coverage of matters of major public interest."
That doesn't seem to be what the parent was getting at. He was saying that maybe it could be argued that if any defamation happened, it didn't happen to the people that brought the suit. FWIW I doubt that would have worked either but I have no clue.
Great post, and exactly right. These anti-alternative-therapy people keep claiming alternative therapies "aren't scientific", but neither is traditional medicine. Doctors are just trained to compare symptoms with available pharmaceuticals and prescribe something and see if it works. It's totally shooting in the dark, and there's very little work in the medical industry that I see to understand how the body really works and develop safe and effective therapies for problems. Worse, all the pharmaceuticals have loads of negative side-effects.
There's a lot of people with various problems (like chronic fatigue syndrome) that traditional medicine has done absolutely nothing to find relief for, so they're forced to turn to anything that might help. You can cry all you want that it's bogus, but trying nearly anything beats sitting on your ass and suffering.
Nevertheless, adding a few references here and there that corroborate the journalist's claims wouldn't hurt. I wonder if the libel law isn't about that.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
I've checked further since posting that. In England, the truth is considered an allowable defense, and it is, in fact, an affirmative defense because the statements are presumed false until proven true. Even then, you can still lose your case because in England, libel and slander are about defamation, and if you've defamed somebody be telling the truth, it's still defamation.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
'Indeed, the problem has gotten to be so bad that it has given rise to so called "libel tourism" where people who want to sue for libel go out of their way to find some connection, no matter how tenuous to Great Britain, so that they can justify suing in British courts'
Tom Cruise: [approaches Stan] 'So you're NOT the prophet, huh?! You made me look stupid! I'm gonna sue you too!'
Stan: 'Well fine! Go ahead and sue me!'
Tom Cruise: 'I will! I'll sue you in England!'
Scientology President: 'You are so sued, kid!'
South Park, 'Trapped in the Closet'.
The article you link to says, among other things, "In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work." Note that there is nothing in that quote that implies that the statements must be false, as there would be in the US. If an English newspaper were to publish an article showing that a prominent politician was a transvestite, with photographs, they'd still be sued for libel, and they'd lose because what they published defamed said politician and that's all that matters there. Yes, you can try to prove that what you printed was true, but if the truth is sufficiently defamatory, it won't be enough.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The fascinating thing that we're only just beginning to learn is that there is a measurable *physiological* placebo response.
If you'd read the recent Wired article (which is, admittedly, simply an accessible summary of the current state of things), you would not be so hasty to discount the real, measurable response to placebo.
The placebo problem Big Pharma's desperate to solve
Wow, what arrogance. Who the fuck are you to say that those people did not heal anyone?
I'll bite. Among other things I'm a logical thinker and am a trained (though not practicing) scientist. My wife is an MD and we've discussed this very issue many times.
My dad lasted five years longer with his cancer than the doctor told him he would,...
That is a happy state of affairs but your logic is failing you. Doctors are wrong all the time. I know because I'm married to one who specializes in cancer diagnosis. It is an imperfect science and cancer is nowhere near being completely understood. Some cancers regress spontaneously for no explainable reason. Some cancers progress more slowly than average. No doctor can tell you more than a statistical likelihood for time to live and their answer is most likely incorrect - the only question is by how much. If your father sought unproven "alternative" medicines that is his right but the burden of proof is on you to show that they had some effect. I'm not about to assume that some snake-oil works just because some people believe it may have helped without any evidence to back up that assertion. That may sound cold but science is cold in a way.
I know a ton of doctors personally and I don't know a single one that wouldn't use something to save a patient that could be *proven* to work or even had a logical premise for why it should work. All progress in medicine is exploratory and comes about through trying things that we don't know if they'll work. But there is a threshold for absurdity. Claiming that you can cure cancer through chiropractic joint manipulation or acupuncture is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
We still don't know which one of those "absurd lying pieces of worthless trash" delayed his death this much.
Quite possibly none of them. Cancer doesn't always behave the way we think it will. Survival statistics are simply probabilities and sometimes people beat the averages by quite a lot.
Maybe it was the placebo effect, who knows. But do you think we care? When you live with someone who should've been dead for 3 years already, you tend to look a bit differently at medical science.
I have lived with dying people. My wife has worked in a hospice and diagnoses cancer patients daily. It hasn't changed my view on medicine one bit. The human body is incredibly complicated and there is far more that we don't understand than what we do. Getting cynical about medicine because we can't cure or even diagnose every disease is a waste of energy and time. If seeking emotional solace in "alternative medicine" or religion or whatever else help you cope, I guess I can't argue with that. But I certainly can and will argue against quackery because it hurts more people than it helps.
While the documentary you linked me to is entertaining (having watched only part 1), it is imperative that I distinguish the practices that I was referring to from other types of homeopathic and naturopathic medicine, some of which are very unscientific. What I am talking about is called orthomolecular medicine, which essentially says that almost all non-genetic diseases are caused entirely by nutritional deficiencies. Note that, obviously, germs are the cause of infectious disease, but these nutritional deficiencies are what allow us to fall prey to them. These deficiencies and thus diseases can be cured by proper diet and vitamin/mineral supplements.
call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
A few paragraphs down the article says: "There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true . . . " (emphasis added). Besides, my argument is that Singh's statement can be broken into two claims: (1) that the BCA promotes certain treatments and (2) that the certain treatments are bogus. The first statement is about the BCA while the second one is about the treatments. I think that the truth of the second statement should be deemed irrelevant.
I'm not stating what British law is. I don't actually know what British law is (other than reading non-legal articles like the one cited). Thus, my argument is really a proposed defense that I think makes sense, at least in this instance. It would certainly be a lot easier for Singh to show that his statement only characterized the BCA as promoting certain treatements, as opposed to proving that the treatments are bogus. Of course, if the BCA does not promote such treatments, then Singh would not be able to use this kind of defense.
Singh said that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments". If he just said that the treatments were bogus, he would probably be okay. But he implied that the chiropractors knowing give phony treatments.
You are an absolute idiot. That is a verifiable fact.
What part of the definition of "defamatory" implies falsehood?
But if the sugar pill can save your life and the medical treatment gives up on you, would you take it?
That's a strawman argument. Sugar pills do not save lives and we know they do not save lives.
Would you call other people stupid for taking it?
Stupid? Possibly. Desperate? Definitely. Naive? Probably.
Next time he cracks your neck, wet your pants and go limp on him.
And that's different in the US how, exactly? If someone accused you of being a murderer, and you didn't like that very much, how would you prove that you aren't?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Chiropractors do provide health benefits.
Many conditions which will prompt MD's to send you to orthopedic surgeons can be treated successfully through non-invasive and much less expensive chiropractic treatment.
It's quite common in the US for chiropractors to treat whiplash injuries.
My step father was a chiropractor, and had to take boards and licensing exams like every other medical professional.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Here is some pseudo-code to help you out in understanding how I view the article's characterization of British libel law (sorry that it is all left-indented...I don't know how to get /. to embed a pseudocode-snippet properly):
if (exposes(publication(s), p, TO_HATE) || exposes(publication(s), p, TO_RIDICULE) ||
causes(publication(s), p, TO_BE_SHUNNED) ||
estimation_of(publication(s), p, RIGHT_THINKING) < estimation_of(NULL, p, RIGHT_THINKING)) ||
disparages(public(s), work_of(p))) {
if (is_true(s) || is_fair_comment(s) || is_protected_by_privilege(s)) {
libel = false;
} else
libel = true;
}
} else {
libel = false;
}
This is a typical way for affirmative defenses to work. A prima facie case is made (e.g., "X murdered Y because X killed Y"), then the defense is made (e.g., "X did not murder Y because the killing was a justified self-defense").
Chiropractors have lots of evidence to support their claims.
Actually they don't for many of them. Many consider subluxation to be the basis of most disease which is a theory that is highly disputed and not held in much regard throughout most of the medical community. This is the bit of chiropractic medicine that is considered borderline if not outright quackery.
I started going on the recommendation of a full fledged MD because misalignment in my neck.
Nothing wrong with that. Joint alignment is what chiropractors do and as a form of massage therapy there is good reason to suspect it might help a condition like what you describe. The problem is that they too often claim to cure diseases with little evidence to support their claims. What evidence they do provide tends to be weak and the studies tend not to be especially large or rigorous. The overall effectiveness of chiropractic medicine is a subject of much dispute.
A href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation">this one
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you're such an expert, why don't you understand what an allowable defence is?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It looks like some cultural illiterates are modding you flamebait and offtopic. I guess they never heard of Oscar Wilde, John Ruskin or James Abbott McNeil Whistler. My suggestion? Don't try to appear as "too smart" with this crowd. They will mod down anything they don't understand. It threatens their claim to intelligence and that claim is often their only comfort. It leads me to wonder how Monty Python became popular among the nerd crowd. The humor often requires a frame of reference for understanding a joke that revolves around the absurdity of mentioning a Wittgenstein or a Proust, in the context of downhill motor racing.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Actually, naturopathic medicine is not only legitimate, it is superior to and will eventually replace allopathic medicine (mainstream, drug-and-surgery medicine), assuming the Singularity does not occur first.
Glad we had you to clear that up for us. Nice to know that all those incredibly smart doctors have wasted their time and energy and have no idea what they are talking about. I assume you are just waiting for your Nobel prize in medicine because you know better than all of them? Sorry to hear the Nobel committee screwed you again this year.
For proof, read a book or two by Linus Pauling.
Very smart people say very absurd things all the time. Hero worship does not constitute proof of anything.
As for chiropractics, I am not sufficiently informed to make a judgment.
You're pretty clearly not informed enough about medicine to make an informed judgment either.
I'd extend that to the fact that nowadays, any "normal" doctor is basically a fraud.
Or when was the last time a doctor cared about the actual cause of a disease. Or maybe even how to prevent it the next time and where it came from.
Wow are you cynical. You don't actually know any doctors personally do you? Because if you did you would know how absolutely fucking absurd that claim is. My wife happens to be an MD and it happens to be her life's work to study and figure out the cause of disease. Don't confuse profit motivated drug companies with the doctors who make use of their medicines.
This is because usually, they actually can't fix much.
Let me let you in on a secret. You're going to die. The most any doctor can ever do is delay that for a while. But you're going to die and every doctor on the planet will tell you that fact. I suggest you come to terms with that and you'll live a more contented life.
It is false that "false or unjustified" implies falsehood.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I think there are a number of issues in the article that have not been revealed. Even amongst chiropractors there is dissent between those who prefer a more science based approach vs those who make claims that it will cure this or that. That is the new vs the established chiropractors.
Universities that teach Chiropractic have been pushing students to use a science based approach and reputable chiropractors will only claim that it will help you to function better. From what I've discovered that amongst the BCA's objections to Dr Singh's criticisms of the chiropractic association are that he on focused on one side of the debate and lead people to believe that *all* chiropractors were the same and that cases cited as causing harm were not performed by chiropractors but by people not qualified to perform chiropractic procedures.
Dr Singh himself states that chiropractic has benefit for treating musculo-skeletal issues but he hasn't framed his criticisms of chiropractic methodology in the context of 'it has some benefit' but in the context of 'it has dubious benefit and may cause harm'. Whilst misusing libel laws is a contemptible act is that what is actually happening here?
I know from personal experience that not all chiropractic methods work (at least on me) but before chiropractic treatment I had a number of ailments that have been resolved with no other type of treatment occurring and I know many other people who report the same things. I know this is anecdotal evidence but instead of an adversarial approach to this argument why aren't why trying to discover *what* is occurring when chiropractic adjustments are performed? Clearly there is substance to the idea that reducing the amount of drugs ingested by people is good, so why don't we discover what *is* treated effectively and use a science based approach instead of trashing an entire profession that many people benefit from.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Actually, the article summary is, as usual, incorrect. Specifically, it is not true that:
Rather, in defamation cases in Britain (and Australia, New Zealand and AFAIK Canada) a statement is first considered in its own right to consider whether it carries any defamatory imputation. If there is no defamatory imputation, there is no libel or slander claim. However, if the Court determines that there is a defamatory imputation on the face of the statement, then it is for the maker of the statement to justify it.
Which is as it should be - if I write "Darkness404 molests goats" then unless it is true why should I not compensate you for the resulting harm to your reputation? Whereas if it is true, then I have done nothing but convey the truth of the situation to the audience. I think that many people here are confusing "free speech" with "freedom from liability for any consequences of my speech howsoever I choose to exercise it" which are two entirely different things.
Justifying the statement is not an exercise in proving its absolute truth, either. Civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities, not 'beyond reasonable doubt' or to some degree of logical or scientific certainty.
The suggestion in the article that all of this is new and has journalists "running scared" is bogus (ahem) too. Essentially the same principles have applied for several hundred years.
Read Pynchon.
stupid article since both authors published statements that are obviously false. MD's use many of the same techniques as chiropractors they are time tested and proven (traction is a chiropractic technique). Vitamins can be used to treat anything they are crucial for the body to fight decease. You can say that it may not be as effective as anti-retroviral treatment but to say it isn't a valid treatment is false.
Because making it didn't libel/slander anyone.
But does that mean that "false or unjustified" can include truth? Think about it. Any bit of knowledge can be true, false, or possible (that is, it could be true, or it could be false, but its truthiness is unknown. Thus, a statement of something that is possible (e.g., "X is actually an alien from outer space sent here to spy on humanity") may be defamatory if it is unjustified (i.e., there is no evidence to sustain the allegation). The interesting question is whether one is liable if the statement was unjustified when said, but proven to be true (and thus justifiable in hindsight) in court.
True dat. There are too many computer geeks here. They don't know shit besides fucking around with a computer, but they think they know everything. They don't like their abundant ignorance rubbed in their faces.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
If you are a journalist and can't back up "accusations" in
court then why do you even bother to begin with? If all you
are doing is making unsubstantiated claims then your engaging
in what amounts to FUD. I suppose to some people it sucks to
be held to professional standards.
Surely this will be abused, but the idea that you can pull
stuff out of your nether regions and call that journalism
is equally problematic.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, if I go around Britain saying that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are murdering, blood-drinking, child molesters, I could be found liable for libel? Funny that.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Heh. "Slings and Arrows!" indeed...
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
From your favourite authoritative source.
Note: proves, not merely claims.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Anybody can claim that they believed anything. Until someone invents a mindreading device and time travel.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So you were wrong all along. Why don't you just fuck off, you fat cunt?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well according to the great legal minds around here you'd be OK, because they'd have to prove they aren't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
[[citation needed]]
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe my parents were smart enough to avoid the quacks when I was younger. But in my own personal experience of many years, chiropractors work and are very effective... ...at treating skeleto-muscular problems of the spinal column and the associated nerves.
They worked very well for me when I was working as a landscaper, swinging heavy machinery around all day? I'd get something thrown out of whack, and they'd put it back. It was wonderful!
However, in my personal opinion, if they're saying they can treat anything OTHER than a muscular, skeletal or nerve disorder associated with the spine, then caveat emptor.
[End Of Line]
You honor, may I at least *think* it's bogus science?
Yes, you can think all you want.
Then I THINK it's bogus science!
and they there is intelligent life here on Earth!
You don't know squat about US law, do you? It is up to the state to prove that you are a murderer. You only need to try to discredit the prosecution's evidence/theories. You never have to prove that you are innocent.
In fact, you technically don't need to present a defense to be acquitted. If the prosecution's evidence is flimsy enough, you can just stand up and state that the prosecution's case is insufficient to prove your guilt, and let the jury decide. I think you can even ask the judge to throw out the case out this point due to lack of evidence.
Belittling British Boffins Bears Bad Backlash!
"You sir, have accused me of libel. This is obviously untrue, so I am bringing you up on charges of libel."
The civilian government is turning out to be a bigger bunch of tyrants than the monarchs ever were!
While there seems to be very little good said about US policies and the general court systems in the US, this is one place where, as an American, I'm glad that my country has things the way they are. In the United States, there has traditionally been a very high burden placed on anyone suing for libel. In the UK it is very easy to mount an effective libel case even if the claims are true. The burden is placed on the defendant. Nearly all libel cases in the US are lost, although they still may be filed just as a means of making someone's life difficult, but the actual suit is rarely viable.
Basically you can only sue for libel if the statement and case meet the following criteria:
1. The statement is factual in nature and believable - Therefore if someone says "you're a jackass" or "he's ugly" or "he's the human form of the devil" then there's no way you can sue for that. Those are either unbelievable or a matter of opinion. They're not falsifiable.
2. It must be untrue - No matter how bad or damaging, if it isn't proven to be false, then it is a no go.
3. It must be harmful to one's reputation, ability to do buisiness or some other value - There must be an at least plausible claim to harm. If they missquote the date of birth of someone, that's not enough for libel, unless you somehow can show that there is significant harm from this being said of you.
4. The person must know it is false - if they reported something that was false in good faith that it was true, they're not libel. This is fairly unique as most areas of law don't recognize ignorance as a defense. Also, it's VERY VERY difficult to prove.
5. They must have said it with malice - they knew it would cause you harm, they knew it was false and they said it knowing that harm would be caused. This is damn near impossible to prove..
At least in this one area, the US does, IMHO, a damn good job. Just wish more lawsuits had such a high burden. It comes from the tradition of freedom of speech and expression being protected. While that seems all but dead these days, at least one vestige is still around.
In the US, it suffices that you believe your statements to be true.
I will add the mass of speculation and contradictory statements that constitute Slashdot legal advice by saying that, in my very limited understanding, this statement only applies to public figures accusing others of slandering them. I've been told that for private citizens, certain statements (especially about professional competence), have a much lower hurdle--they need to be false, but not malicious or intentionally misleading.
This seems broadly consistent with some private litigation I've heard about, plus HR paranoia about references, but I really am not sure. It falls into that category of legal advice ("don't bad-mouth people, especially if you don't know all the facts") which gibes very well with maternal wisdom.
There's a reason we sent the Brits packing. Can't see why George W. was so determined to be just like them.
Long live freedom of speech.
Make a public claim that Vitamin E does not cure cancer, nor does it cure baldness. Any claim to the contrary then will be classified as libel.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
- Winston Churchill
Now I know the Slashdot tendency to dismiss homeopathy and the like, and we've now here got Mr Martian labeling large swaths of the population as deliberate liars and "worthless".
We're all entitled to our own opinions, however they may lie, but I still do wish to pose a question to those who claim that "the scientific method" is the "ONLY" proof or evidence admissibly valid for consideration.
I'm sure my post will be modded out, fair enough, slashdot group-think at work again.
I've long ago noticed that we humans, all of us, although being very similar in most respects, actually react in very different ways to all manner of substances, be they "natural", refined, or "artificial". Pharmaceutical science acknowledges this by requiring a threshold percentage of success for their cures, or remedies or what have you. Which is NOT 100%.
What do these differences in we humans mean?
They mean that we are all of us anecdotes-in-waiting when it comes to therapy X - we have varying degrees of reaction and response. Sometimes things work for many, sometimes they work for only a few.
No doubt there are charlatans, but there is also increasing evidence (not proof) that some of these "alternative medicines" that are so constantly scorned, can, and actually do, help some people. ... if you have personal experience that these DO NOT WORK for your OWN particular illness or malaise, then flame away to your ethno-cultural-biological sub-group.
Shiatsu, acupuncture, homeopathy, bach flower remedies
We are NOT all the same, and even if it's politically incorrect and "racist" to make the observation, inherited genetics have much to do with our responsiveness to external stimulae. I talked with police instructors who said that certain techniques they use on white people can not be used on "black" people, because "they're built differently, and they are more likely to die when we apply technique Z".
Why is it necessary to destroy all hope for so many others who fall outside of the pharmaceutical "efficacity percentage threshold"?
Even if it's only a placebo effect and positive-thinking, if it's USEFUL, then use it.
If magic stones work for me, let me pay for them, it doesn't hurt you. Really, it doesn't, and if there is any effect on you personally, it's mighty small.
Live your own life, stop focusing on minutiae that only appear to inflate your sense of self-righteousness.
You can't explain how gravity works, but you still use it to pour the coffee beans into your grinder in the morning.
Most people can't explain why they feel better in the sunshine - they just follow their instincts.
Where is the human instinct to swallow copious amounts of SSRIs?
There certainly seems to be a human instinct for human contact, sympathy, and "touch therapy".
Any competent nurse or doctor in a hospital will tell you the same.
And in reply to the P, chances are the father would have lived longer than expected without this so-called "doctor" being wrong, as he so generously observed. I've known doctors to be correct, and personally met some "qualified" and "experienced" quacks who prescribe antibiotics for virus infections without testing. Shall we dismiss all doctors too, based on my anecdotal experience?
If you, P, can find a uniform population of animals with *exactly* the same form of cancer as each other, and they are all experiencing *exactly* the same symptoms, and can prove that all these animals have the identical reaction to all substances and treatments, then you can put your mighty scientific method on its pedestal quite safely. Otherwise, realize that this "confidence level" magically invoked in the scientific method always acknowledges, as ironically mocked by Hugh Grant, as "2% absolutely bloody useless".
It's a method, not a religion. Sometimes, dare we breath the word, science gets it wrong. It's what we call "progress" when we think it "finally gets it right". Only to be proven inaccurate in further later years.
When I think about it
What if the article was published in Asian countries like India - which is predominantly English speaking, has a free press that loves anti-colonial articles and does not recognise British libel laws ?
So isn't it a simple matter to sue people who claim that vitamins can cure hiv/aids, since they can't prove it? Maybe the maker of HIV antivirals would have to sue under the assumption that people (idiots) buying vitamins instead of expensive drugs were hurting their business, and hence libel...
Until very recently Legal Aid and no-win no-fee arrangements were not available for libel, so the libel court was inaccessible to all but the wealthiest individuals. The British press exploited this by regularly defaming people without any fear of legal retribution. The law remained claimant-friendly since those cases that made it to court were almost invariably the strongest cases. Whilst it would be personally bad for Simon Singh if he lost this case such an affront to common sense could provide the momentum for the law to be changed.
The monarch hasn't been sovereign since 1688.
Why do people continually try to debunk a well-known, scientifically proven, response of the body to sham treatments?
You guys should try to concentrate on things like:
If you were a doctor, and you diagnosed a patient, who feels relatively good, with an incurable malady (I am assuming that this is not a progressive problem which is known to worsen, nor is it fatal) which you knew that caused most of the sufferers enormous pain and other ill effects, would you have no qualms in telling the patient "Wow, I'm impressed. Most people with this problem have much more pain than you." and continuing in giving really detailed information about all kinds of bad things which the patient could possibly experience (assuming that the patient didn't ask for the information himself)?
IANAD, but personally, I'd try to say something like "This problem usually causes a lot of ill effects [and here I would give the absolute minimum of details about the significant risks], but you might have an atypical case, so you should continue to do whatever you're doing and your condition might remain stable". Frankly, nowadays once he has a diagnosis, anyway the first thing the patient is most likely to do is check the net for more information, and he can decide by himself if he wants to wallow in the gory details about the bad possibilities of his situation.
You can sue anybody for anything. It's not as if the CPS are bringing charges. Why should defamation be free of the fear of retribution ? And why does the summary mention presumption of innocence, it has nothing to do with libel, defamation or slander. Total flamebait, again. If Singh had a case he should have sued them, instead he spreads defamatory comments and acts surprised when they react.
It's funny because, if you've watched Outfoxed, this very legal argument is why no one has been able to bring a libel or defamation suit against Bill O'Reilly. He's a pathological liar, and it's impossible to prove he's intending to harm people with his lies and doesn't actually believe what he's saying.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
Yes, you've pointed it out several times. But, as the GP was saying, you're wrong. The truth is an absolute defence here; you were, however, correct in your OP when you said it is an affirmative defence, i.e. you have to prove it.
See this useful summary. Relevant quote: "There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true [...]".
In your original post, you say this:
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense.
This is all correct.
That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
But these two sentences are wrong. I believe you misunderstand what an affirmative defence is.
I can't speak for Britain but at least in Sweden you can be convicted for slander ("fÃrtal") even if every single word you said were true.
Etc. if you videotape someone having sex outside of their marriage and then go around spreading the word you could be convicted for slander, even if you bring your tape to the court and show that you are telling the truth. So Face it, US laws/definitions don't apply in the entire world.
On a personal note, I think that the truth *should* be an absolute defence against slander in Sweden.
You misread the parent comment. Go back and read it again. The point is, that under US law (at least as described by the GGP post), if somebody publishes an article which (as an example of a libelous statement) calls you a murderer and you want to sue them for libel, you would have to be able to prove that you aren't a murderer. This is clearly impossible, so it renders US libel laws effectively impotent.
Unless this supposed difference between UK and US law isn't as clear as these articles we keep seeing are making it out to be.
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
Yes, it will. Please stop spreading FUD about English law. Proof of the truth of a statement is an accepted defence in English libel law, and every source I see describing English libel law says so. Please provide a direct link and (preferably) quotation of one that says otherwise.
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
I've just read the relevant wikipedia article, and can't see where it says that even if the truth of a statement is proved the defence might not be allowed. Can you quote the exact text that gave you this impression?
For instance, this sentence suggests fairly strongly that showing the truth of the statement is (to put it simply) an automatic win: "A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true."
Well it's going to be hard to publish psychological studies.
I mean psychology is fuzzy science at best.
Interesting: one part of Wikipedia claims that the truth is an absolute defense in England, another claims it's not.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
but proven to be true (and thus justifiable in hindsight)
You are assuming that it is justifiable just because it is true. Different jurisdictions have different views on that, so it is certainly not a safe assumption.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The result, obviously, would depend on the laws of the country in question.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I think you misunderstood me. It's not that the defense wouldn't be allowed, but, AIUI it might not be sufficient if they're considered to be defamatory. As an example, even if you have photographic evidence to back up your story that a certain politician is a transvestite, an English jury can still find you guilty if they consider that it blackened the man's reputation badly enough. One reason, I gather, that their press is so restrained when reporting on the lives of the wealthy is that they have to be very careful to avoid having somebody with deep pockets decide that they don't like having their private lives exposed...
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Well I am not sure, ILIKEANAL.
So, if I go around Britain saying that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are murdering, blood-drinking, child molesters, I could be found liable for libel? Funny that.
Possibly not on the basis that for it to be libel you'd have to be reducing their reputation in some way. Something which would only be credible if you were saying this about random members of the public who happened to have the same names.
I think you've gotten things backwards here. If I sue somebody because they called me a murderer, it's not up to me to prove I'm not; it's up to them (if that's the defense they select) to prove either that I am, or that they had good reason to believe that I'd committed murder.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
And that's different in the US how, exactly? If someone accused you of being a murderer, and you didn't like that very much, how would you prove that you aren't?
This would be a criminal case where the prosecution is required to prove both that a murder has happened and that the accused was responsible. The accused isn't required to prove anything since they are assumed to be innocent.
Whereas with libel things appear to be more a case of "guilty until proven innocent".
IIRC your credibility is a factor, so if you, "Foobar of Borg" were to do that then you would just be ignored. If, however, you were the editor of a popular newspaper and published "factual" stories saying that then you could be found liable. I even think that if you regularly publish a cartoon parodying our leaders in a popular newspaper and chose to draw one depicting your above scenario then you are still not libellous because nobody is expected to believe it (and in fact, its quite common)
As an example, even if you have photographic evidence to back up your story that a certain politician is a transvestite, an English jury can still find you guilty if they consider that it blackened the man's reputation badly enough.
Probably not the best of examples. Since most people would tend to consider that simply being a politician would be enough to have the "blackest" of reputations.
Wow! I've just read through about three pages of you arguing with people - incorrectly - that the truth of a statement isn't an absolute defense against libel & slander, and now I find you making even more incorrect statements in an authoritative manner. Techno-Vampire: this is plainly not your area of expertise, so stop talking with such absolute certainty on things. To respond to the GP, if an article is published in a foreign country, then British laws may still be relevant if that material is available in Britain. Which is probably as it should be you don't want me to be able to legally accuse you of all sorts of false and defamatory things simply by posting them on a website in the USA. That you can sue in Britain for material published abroad, is the reason that Britain is the favored place for bringing such lawsuits, much as i4i decided to sue Microsoft for patent infringement (software patents - *spit*) in the rubber-stamp court of East Texas.
Of course the penalties and damages assigned by a British court will be limited to British interests and law, but for big interests such as the Guardian newspaper, that's a big deal.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I think you would have to prove that the newspaper published information in reckless disregard for the truth--that it, in essence, made it up. If you're a public figure, you would also have to prove malicious intent.
Let's say that you were seen carrying a bloody knife in the vicinity of a corpse. A journalist might reasonably come to the conclusion that you were a murderer, unless they had evidence to the contrary.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there. It is not true.
One counter-reference
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
Or from Wikipedia:
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
Now as I'm English I could sue you for saying that ;-)
Nice try, Glenn Beck
then you should not say it in the first place.
You cannot just go around accusing people of this and that without and proof. How does that help anyone ?
Any article talking about "British" laws should be disregarded out of hand. There is no such thing as "British" law. Presumably the author means English law, but if they don't know enough to say so, then their opinion is largely worthless.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No, not quite. But, everybody would think you're from the TUC.
As a British citizen with direct experience of two such cases, I would argue (with some degree of authority) that what's wrong with your argument is interpretation of what you've read (and the posters above too)
In the UK civil courts, both sides must prove the veracity of their arguments. Thus the plaintiff must show that the respondent's utterances were defamatory, and the respondent must must prove the veracity of his defence, by showing them to be truthful, justified or whatever defence he has chosen to employ. If you can prove the statement is true you will not be found to be guilty of defamation. The difference between the allowable and the absolute defence of truth in the UK & US courts respectively is merely this; in the US truth is an absolute defence and the justice systems explicitly forbids the court from finding in favour of the plaintiff, in the UK it is an allowable defence and historical precedence guides the court that in such cases the plaintiff cannot claim slander if the utterances were truthful.
Civil actions are not about proof as criminal cases are, they're more about putting forward a convincing argument.
Journalistic freedom is highly prized in the UK, and, though journalists' employers may run scared of litigation on occasion, it's very rare for such actions to be successful, and those which are are more often than not overturned at appeal.
The cases discussed here are viewed entirely differently (and rightly so) from the tabloid rumour-mongering which abounds in our newspaper industry
Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
I agree with Hognoxious, techno-vampire I think you are missing something: The truth is only irrelevant when the defense have done something like plead justification for the public benefit or some such. Because it is still defamation, which is what the actual crime is in the UK I believe. And no, IANAL.
In the US the 'subluxation'-based version of chiropractic appears to have a lot of public acceptability, chiropractors can even call themselves Dr. In the UK few people have heard of it and fewer still believe in its efficacy, so the pro-subluxationists still have a lot of ground to make up even if they do win the Singh case. The parallels with creationism in this respect are noticeable.
If the article is read in Britain, then you can be sued in Britain. That doesn't mean that there has to be a regular importer of (say) the magazine to the UK, it's sufficient for one copy to be brought in by one person and shown to one other person in Britain.
(IANAL, but I think this is the case.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
First of all let me state that I am not at all in favour of Chiropractics; I know little about it and can't judge whether their claims are generally valid. At the face of it I would say that it should be a relatively simple matter to determine whether there is any scientific evidence for or against it, and it shouldn't really come to a libel case in thefirst place; that is probably a question of the judge simply not doing his job properly.
What I find dishonest in this post is the way that it is being blown up to be about "Freedom of Whatever" - once again. If we want to be taken serious, we should really avoid sounding hysterical and underhanded.
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence -- any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true. Journalists are running scared.'
It is a basic court principle that if you make a damaging statement, you are required to be able to produce solid evidence; that is why we in criminal cases have the assumption of guilt, which means that the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. When it comes to libel, we are AFAIK into the domain of civil law, where the requirements are as strict - maybe they should be, I'm no expert. The other thing worth noting is that in the case of libel, it is the "defendant" that has made an accusation, an that is why he has to produce evidence for his statements.
Not strictly correct, you don't need to prove it, you just need to prove that you believed it.
For example, if I were to say "xouumalperxe goes out to bars dressed in drag", and you tried to sue me for slander, if I could produce a recording of a telephone conversation saying "xouumalperxe is out in drag!", or a photo of you in drag, even if it's been photoshopped, then those would be acceptable defences.
Well, almost. The use of the word "goes" implies habit, so I would need to show that I had good reason to believe you did it habitually.
Slander/libel laws do not apply to people who are simply mistaken, although it is a difficult distinction to make.
As keeps getting pointed out above, under UK law there is a presumption of innocence. That is applied consistently. If the police accuse me of having done something wrong, there is a presumption that I am innocent. If you, private citizen, accuse me of having done something wrong, there is a presumption that I am innocent, not that you are correct. It is US law that is wrong in principle, because it distinguishes between the police (who must have evidence before bringing a case) and other citizens who are allowed to make claims based on their "belief" unsupported by evidence. Although I personally disagree with Mr. Justice Eady's interpretation of "bogus", until the case is heard the BCA is entitled to pursue their argument that did not actually know that chiropractic is junk non-science.
The thing that is wrong with the British libel system is nothing to do with the law per se: it is ridiculously high British legal fees (following the US)which makes libel cases too expensive to defend for ordinary people, and allows corporations to incur very high costs which they can then reclaim if they win. The McDonalds case was predicated on their spending £40 million in legal fees to try and destroy the defendants financially if they won. The judge did not allow them to collect. The villain in the piece was, is now and will always be McDonalds.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Happily != knowingly. They could merely be incompetent or ignorant.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why should defamation be free of the fear of retribution ?
It's not defamation - it's accurate reporting.
If Singh had a case he should have sued them
For what, exactly?
In the UK there is no offence of slander. Merely Libel - difference is that it has to be written. It's also not a "crime" - it's therefore a matter for a civil court - not a criminal one - you couldn't be arrested for libel.
Further, the person bringing the the action would need to prove that they had suffered a loss as a result of the libel - which can be very hard to prove in cases where it's about reputation and social standing. If you wrote for instance that a supermarket chain sold infected food and it could be shown that your action had resulted in a huge loss of sales for the company that would be fairly clear cut.
If however (as in this case) you said that they were making "bogus claims" - it would be very hard to prove whether this resulted in a loss.
The case seems to revolve around the definition of the word 'bogus' - which the author claims it means that the science that chiropractice is based on is incorrect and unreliable. However it would seem that a more acceptable definition could be that the chiropractors intentionally falsified the scientific claims with a view to misleading customers - which may be true, and is illegal - but as this is a criminal offence, a third party can not legally accuse them of this, as it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Well they can, but are subject to legal action from the people they are accusing)
It's difficult to see how they could prove that they had suffered a loss though - since chiropractors have a loyal following in the UK - who could possibly become more likely to use their services precisely because of the perceived 'dissing' of the treatment by scientists.
So I can't see it's a big deal.
A few years back the football (soccer) team I support carried an article in the match programme by a 13 year old girl that criticised another club's practice of giving away several thousand free tickets for certain games. It said "at least we don't need to bribe people to come and watch us" - This causes quite a stink, since a legal definition of "bribe" - is that it is an "illegal or immoral inducement" - so the libel is absolutely clear cut. Whether it caused a loss or not is debatable - as it got lots of publicity, and the attendance at games where there were no free tickets improved. This could have been due to people enjoying the free games and deciding to pay for some, or it could have been due to their supporters being eager to show that they didn't need 'illegal or immoral inducements' or free tickets to persuade them to watch their team.
End result was a letter of apology, reproduced in the match day programme. Load of fuss about nothing though really.
No that's just correct phrasing of the conclusions.
The fact that it hasn't been shown is not equivalent to the conclusion that it doesn't do something.
Many study results have a known error margin allowing, for instance, only to say things like "based on this experiment we're 95% certain that X doesn't do Y"...
After all, such a claim (that brings up the idea that Dr Singh lies) will DEFINITELY and MATERIALLY harm him.
Since to get redress for these damages doesn't matter in UK law whether they are true or not, just that the damage was the intent rather than a side-effect, the BCA have a problem here (and this is where another poster gets it wrong that even truth isn't a defense: it doesn't defend you against telling the truth to harm another, i.e. saying someone slept with a prozzie may be true, but if done to harm the reputation rather than just report the truth, the damage is still done. In the same way you can't break someone's kneecaps because they raped your wife. They still go to jail for rape, but you go for GBH too).
May I refer you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation
How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act#Rehabilitation_Act_and_actions_for_libel_under_British_law. That's a very special case, of course.
Creators of the Magna Carta, abolishment of slavery before anyone else in the Western World, remaining unbowed and unbroken under the murderous onslaught of fascism, the home of Monty Python and Top Gear, FFS!... and in about ten years they've allowed their goverment to rapidly wear away everything that is right and good about them. I do not understand.
Of course, as an American I live in fear we will exceed even No. 10 when the GOP comes to power again.
If an English newspaper were to publish an article showing that a prominent politician was a transvestite, with photographs, they'd still be sued for libel, and they'd lose because what they published defamed said politician and that's all that matters there. Yes, you can try to prove that what you printed was true, but if the truth is sufficiently defamatory, it won't be enough.
If this was true, care to explain why Max Mosley didnt pursue a claim of defamation against the News of the World in 2008? If your interpretation of our law was true (though seeing as your the only person advocating that interpretation, it seems highly unlikely) then he would have a watertight case against them. In reality, the accusations against Mosley weren't denied (aside from the Nazi reference, which was made by the model not the paper I believe) and Mosley pursued an invasion of privacy case - which he won incidentally.
Truth is an allowable defence - you admit this - if you can provide one example of a case where the truth has been told but defamation has been upheld then you will be vindicated my friend. As it stands, you're looking more and more incorrect with every reply to your unfounded posts.
So, if I go around Britain saying that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are murdering, blood-drinking, child molesters, I could be found liable for libel? Funny that.
That would be slander. For Libel to apply, it would have to be in writing. You should hand out leaflets.
to be required to tell the truth. Hell, they wouldn't have any programming left!
This applies to the courts in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own court rules.
The codification of the Civil Procedure Rules which took effect 26 April 1999 abolished the concept of "affirmative defence" per se. Defences must now be consistent with CPR 16.5, which requires that the defendant's case be fully outlined at the time of filing the Defence with the court.
Previously, affirmative defences were filed and notified in a different manner from disagreements over fact or law. Affirmative defences were generally those that could be decided by the District Judge alone in the event that there was no dispute over fact or the authority for the applicable legal principles.
In defamation cases there is a pre-action protocol which must be followed with the coming into force of this pre-action protocol in April 2006. Pay attention to 3.6. This is a double-edged sword in that a defendant may be found to be unnecessarily increasing costs by refusing a quick and effective remedy suggested by the Claimant or a third party (e.g., a full retraction and public apology) and -- if the matter proceeds to trial in the courts -- the defendant may be penalized on costs to the extent of paying all the Claimant's and court costs. Alternatively, a claimant who does not accept a reasonable remedy suggested by the Defendant or a third party (e.g., a retraction, apology, and the payment of money to offset any likely damage) may be penalized on costs to the extent of paying all the Defendant's and court costs.
Costs are dealt with in CPR rules 43-48, and particularly in CPR rule 44.3 - for defamation cases, note 44.3(5) -- simply reasserting the truth that a statement that the Claimant says is untrue and defamatory is an excellent way to find oneself liable for all the costs in the case, which generally vastly surpasses any damages awarded to a successful Claimant. The Defendant, if relying on a defence of truth, must be prepared to demonstrate the truth of the statement, and must also prove that it was not exaggerated or framed in a defamatory way. That is, the Defendant must help the court weigh the question of whether what was published was actually true, and that it was published in a way not designed to cause real, avoidable damage to the Claimant.
Generally speaking a strong public-interest argument has trumped a malice (i.e., deliberately damaging publication) argument in recent defamation cases.
Public-interest arguments generally require the truth of the statement to be demonstrated.
By contrast, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that a published statement was deliberately designed to damage the reputation enjoyed by the Claimant (this is especially true in the case of quacks, who earn quite a lot of money because they are liars and charlatans), and arguments about proportionality carry weight in the courts (e.g., is calling the quacks liars in a widely-read publication a better approach than writing privately to a government regulator, or an M.P.?).
Getting a Defence right in a defamation case is difficult, expensive work that requires a specialist litigation unit. Uncertainties over costs generally either pressurize Defendants into making an early pre-trial settlement offer that is worse (for the Defendant) than what could be reasonably expected at trial, or lead Defendants into bargain hunting on solicitors and barristers with the goal of keeping their own costs low "just in case".
On the other hand, being a Claimant in a defamation case also has risks, and the courts have been assessing costs against unsuccessful and partially successful Claimants in recent years. This has significantly dented the reputation of one well known solicitor's firm specializing
The one thing I have learnt in this entire discussion is why Tom Cruise said he was going to sue Stan(?) in England
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I think the fact that something is true may not enough if you could not be justified in making it public knowledge. For example, breach of trust or privacy. If I discovered that you and your S.O. were into hardcore BDSM, and I printed it in salacious detail in a gossip rag (with pictures) I suspect I would have defamed you even if it is true because I had no business making it public for profit.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
We're not in Kansas any more! The creationists should move to Britain, then they could sue anybody who says that creationism isn't science.
Free Martian Whores!
Simon Singh did very good popular radio bits on NUMBERS, amongst other good work.
You can listen to the first series (and hunt around for "another 5 numbers", "5 more numbers", etc.) at BBC radio 4 -- keep clicking: there is a "listen to the show" bit at the bottom.
Don't worry about your slander on that statement. You can get pictures easily in Philly, PA - USA by attending Dracula's Ball.
Oh bless your little colonial cotton socks, that's so quaint!
I think you will find that the US legal system is closely related to the British one, which has been around a tad longer (though is not necessarily the better for being so - wigs and whatnot, I ask you! What on earth do they think they look like!).
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
As a American scientist I am troubled at hearing this. Being challenged and defending "your science" is what we do. How can it work any other way?
Churchill would have said trousers...
FGD 135
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence -- any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true.
And that fucking great I say!
Of course I know the British court system was around first. I was just under the impression that the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was inspired from across the pond, but it does not seem that that is the case.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Because it was popular with the original geek crowd, who would get those references. Later geeks who don't just learn to laugh along at the right times and quote the right bits to make it look like they're in on the joke.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
I'm not following you. Could you put in terms of either the Star Trek or Buffy universe? I don't have a car.
Got it!
1) become eminent public figure
2) Do shady things behind closed doors
3) Wait for someone to find out about this
4) Sue them for liable - and win because what they said was very defamatory even though it was true
5) Profit!
If this is actually the case then the legal system is in even more trouble than I thought.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Intelligence has nothing to do with a persons knowledge of a certain topic or area of study.
You left out an important part:
That is, if your intent is malicious or if the information is "privileged", then even truth isn't a defense against libel under the British system anymore.
So by your own words the maker of the statement is presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is perverse. It is unfortunately, also the law in Britain. And the way the British libel laws are formulated are very much in favour of the accusing party as well, as are the exceptionally high court costs, which means that the accusing party doesn't even need to win to get the desired effect, and the fines are always draconian. Look up "British libel tourism" if you've got a strong stomach.
If Slander were legalized, then people would be more critical of possibly defamatory statements. They would wonder: Who wants me to believe this, and by following the buck, come to suspect the maker of the statement a being untrustworthy, effectively ending their ability to slander anyone, all without interference by the law.
...
Certain kinds of intelligence. Certainly.
The intelligent who are yet incurious are little more than a human abacus or thesaurus.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Bing Crosby's granddaughter got drunk, and fucked the robot. LAUGH!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
There are too many computer geeks here.
No there aren't. Note that slashdot is explicitly advertised as "news for nerds", using one of the other popular calumnies against those of us with technical interests and education. Those are the people that this site was built for, and its success has been because it does a pretty good job of attracting the kind of people that its founders were trying to attract.
If you object to a forum that's run by and overpopulated by tech nerds and geeks, you're the one who doesn't belong here. But there are a zillion other news and discussion forums on the Web; you should look around for one that's more to your liking.
(Oh, and before someone else says it: Whoosh! ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You could say it several more times and it still doesn't make it true. I have heard that some countries have this law, but in the UK and Commonwealth countries, truth is an abosolute defense to libel and slander, you just have to prove that either it is true (justification), or it is a belief that may be held by a rational person (fair comment). Witness the Marquess of Queensberry who defended himself from Oscar Wilde's libel action by proving that Wilde was a homosexual and thus calling him a "posing somdomite(sic)" was accurate.
The reason for this approach is that in Commonwealth countries people are responsible for checking the facts before talking. Ignorance of fact is no excuse to defame someone, only the truth is worth protecting as free speech. Take your poorly researched and unfair comments about the UK legal system for an example, what you said was neither true, nor a fair comment, since it may be easily researched, even just through looking at wikipedia. Of course this statement has not caused actual damage to the United Kingdom and thus is not actionable as defamation.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
One reason, I gather, that their press is so restrained when reporting on the lives of the wealthy is that they have to be very careful to avoid having somebody with deep pockets decide that they don't like having their private lives exposed...
You've obviously never read a British tabloid newspaper, have you? Go read copy of the Sun or the Mail to see just how wrong that statement is.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
The UK's Libel Laws are also being used to silence other Critical Journalism as well - Coming into work today a followup on 2006 story (Thousands Sickened by Toxic Waste in Ivory Coast) noted that the company responsible had been hiring legal firm specializing in libel to sue the BBC news media covering the story.
Not yet finding the story from today - it may not be on the NPR website and/or indexed yet.
And of course, in Soviet Russia, Stalin Kills you, then Sues You.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I think you've gotten things backwards here. If I sue somebody because they called me a murderer, it's not up to me to prove I'm not; it's up to them (if that's the defense they select) to prove either that I am, or that they had good reason to believe that I'd committed murder.
Well, yes.
My point is that that's exactly how the system should be, and yet that is what everyone is complaining about the system being in the UK... i.e. the person who made the statement must be able to prove it is at least a justifiable statement. From what everyone else has been saying, in the US it is up to the person who was libelled to prove the statement is false, but you are now denying this.
So, what exactly _is_ the difference that everyone is so worked up about?
You left out an important part:
The publisher could prove the statement to be true, it could be fair comment - so long as the opinion is based on true facts, [and] is genuinely held and not influenced by malice - or it could be protected by privilege
That is, if your intent is malicious or if the information is "privileged", then even truth isn't a defense against libel under the British system anymore.
You're misreading it. There are three defences:
- the statement is true
- the statement is "fair comment" (i.e. it doesn't have to be shown to be true, but does have to be an opinion that is formed based on true facts, is genuinely held by the maker of the statement, and is not malicious)
- or the statement is protected by privilege (e.g. it is made in parliament or in court).
Neither the conditions on what constitutes fair comment or any matters relating to privelege affect the validity of a defence of truth.
I think the fact that something is true may not enough if you could not be justified in making it public knowledge. For example, breach of trust or privacy. If I discovered that you and your S.O. were into hardcore BDSM, and I printed it in salacious detail in a gossip rag (with pictures) I suspect I would have defamed you even if it is true because I had no business making it public for profit.
There are privacy laws in the UK, but they are distinct from the defamation laws. You could be sued for invasion of privacy in such a case, I believe, but not (successfully) for libel.
In the US, the truth is an absolute defense; if the defendant can prove that what they said/wrote is true, they're home free. In England, it's an allowable defense; judges commonly follow the precedent that no damages are awarded if the statements are proven true, but AIUI, there's nothing in the law to require that. In fact, the Wikipedia article on libel says that a charge can be brought if the statements are defamatory or harmful to a person's reputation, but avoids the word "false." In fact, in the Wikipedia discussion page for Libel, there's an explicit statement (by a non-lawyer) that "...UK law (along with that of other Commonwealth countries) does NOT require falsehood to establish libel."
A number of posters are denying this and insisting that because they're all saying the same thing, they must be right. Shame, really, to see so many slashdotters falling for the fallacy that the truth can be decided by consensus, no matter what the actual evidence says.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The man himself lost a libel case against the Marquess of Queensbury, because what had been written by the Marquess (you can imagine it...) was actually true.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
OK, I was under the impression that you actually needed to prove the statement, not just belief. A quick lookup yielded that that is indeed the case under UK electoral law, and the confusion was a matter of scope. Interestingly, you can still be sued for defamation under UK electoral law if you say something that is true, if you didn't actually know it to be true at the time you said it.
Let's be honest. Wikipedia is the worst thing to happen to knowledge since Savonarola lit the torches at the Bonfire of the Vanities. It's full of half-truth masquerading as truth, lies masquerading as truth, and the rare gleam of truth...which is then watered down with bullshit from creationists and cold fusion believers to the point where it's actually impossible to learn anything by reading the article.
Articles about countries are defended rabidly by nationalists. Articles about quackery are defended by the quacks making money off it. Articles about celebrities are defaced by fifteen-year-olds. Articles about science are written by people whose knowledge of science starts and ends with "there are nine planets."
Stop quoting Wikipedia.
I'm not misreading it; the sentence is ambiguous and poorly worded. Hence it doesn't support your assertion. If you want to support your reading, you really need to find a better source.
In general, in many European legal systems, even true statements may result in defamation claims under certain circumstances. There is no reason to believe that Britain would be any more lenient.
In the US, the truth is an absolute defense; if the defendant can prove that what they said/wrote is true, they're home free. In England, it's an allowable defense; judges commonly follow the precedent that no damages are awarded if the statements are proven true, but AIUI, there's nothing in the law to require that.
I see where you're coming from now. You're misunderstanding what the word 'allowable' means in this context: if a defence is allowable, that means that the defendent is allowed to pursue it and if they successfully show that the conditions attached to it are true then the case against them must be dismissed. The difference from an absolute defence is that in the case of an absolute defence, the court is required to consider whether it is true or not, whether or not the defendent produces evidence that it is a valid defence in their case, and can decide for the defendant merely because the plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that it is not.
For example, in the US, 'fair use' is an allowable defence against a charge of copyright infringement. It is assumed by the court that any copying is not fair use, unless the defendant produces a reasonable argument that it is.
In fact, the Wikipedia article on libel says that a charge can be brought if the statements are defamatory or harmful to a person's reputation, but avoids the word "false."
This is true. However there's a difference between bringing a case to court and the court deciding in your favour...
No. In the case of an absolute defense, if the defense proves their defense, the litigation is ended in their favor, and it is not subject to mitigation or collateral attack. Note that in the article cited, it's mentioned that the truth is an absolute defense in any defamation case in the US but is not in England. (emphasis added.)
Good, inexpensive web hosting