Slashdot Mirror
Simon Singh To Appeal In UK Court Today
TACD writes "Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today appealing the decision made against him last May over his use of the term 'bogus' to describe the methods used by the British Chiropractic Association. Today's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to reform Britain's horrifically outdated libel laws (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against), and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it comes to open debate and freedom of speech."
Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.
So I so we let him off!
Simon Singh is the author of VERY COOL books:
Fermat's Last Theorem
and
The Code Book
(those are the ones I read, at least)
how long until
This reminds me of the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc.
Quoted from Wikipedia:
Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains their choice of using the term bullshit in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.
Liar: "It is my opinion that you have lied." Motherfucker: "It is my opinion that you have committed incest." What key difference am I failing to see?
"I crack backs; I cure cancer!"
"I crack backs; I cure deafness!"
Chiropractic is pseudo-0scientific bullshit. Along the lines of Homoeopathy, Acupuncture and "bad humours"
Posted AC cuz I'm in the UK oddly enough.
There are a few conditions a Chiropractic practitioner is good for, e.g. pinched nerves. However, their contention that manipulating the spine can fix virtually any condition is, er, properly described as "bogus".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
for the newspapers it's called 'filling the pages with guff about reality TV', for The Eye, it's 'having good lawyers yourself'.
Also, most of us aren't sailors.
FGD 135
1. The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so. We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently. 2. The establishment understands the Streisand effect and ignores the popular press. But now the lawyers rather than the clients are creating the market. They don't care whether they actually suppress the 'libel, they just want to get paid. So they lead stupid people to try. Doubtless they'll get over it eventually.
Perhaps there is a bit of Darwinism here.
The journalists that survive end up becoming accustomed to getting their ducks in a row before going after someone. So by being forced to do their homework properly, they are more confident about their claims and more willing to press them.
It sounds like Singh didn't do that. It sounds like he was just talking trash and got called out for it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is "Two And A Half Men" broadcast in the UK? One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession. Where are the lawsuits over this?
Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.
Please, get this story right, people. It's not about whether these remedies work or not. It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work.
Here's the OED definition of bogus:
pretending to be real or genuine
"Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today...
Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today. And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating? Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?
In cadaver studies the whole pinched nerve thing was shown to be bogus. The amount a spine would have to be manipulated would cripple the subject.
They now resort to "subluxations" which, again, have been shown to be bogus. In experiments with n subjects, some with and some without diagnosed "subluxations" were examined by n chiropractors.
EVERY subject was diagnosed with a "subluxation" and rarely in the same spot.
Bullshit all around.
And see if he can write his own "Ballad of Reading Gaol"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Reading_Gaol
If he's liable for libel or not, the law is an unpredictable stone for throwing. Ask Ruskin or Wilde.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
1. The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so. We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently.
A lot of it come from one single judge as well: Mr Justice Eady.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.
Chiropractic feels good and can be used to temporarily release muscle tension, but you're never going to make me believe that an adjustment on a chiropractor's table lasts beyond using your muscles to get up off the table and walk out of the office. You're better off with deep tissue massage which actually has lasting effects, but DT Massage is often uncomfortable or downright painful, unlike chiropractic. So called "Network Chiropractic" is complete bullshit. The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid. These guys need to be lumped in with homeopathic "doctors", right behind "spiritual healers", performers of Reiki and Scientology's "touch assist".
Holy fuck there are a lot of gullible people on the planet.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I have to agree with the court. The court's ruling is based on the finding that Singh implied that chiropractors were deliberately misleading people. Singh denies this, but I can't really believe his claim. He totally meant it in the manner the court took it. So it's down to libel law, which is pretty simple here. Singh made a damning accusation, which is believable to reasonable people (probably because it's so likely true). The BCA replied with a libel suit. The burden of proof lies on Singh, because even though the BCA brought the suit, it was Singh who made the original accusation. Singh cannot provide proof - in fact his original statement was based on the fact that there is no scientific proof that chiropractors provide health benefits. There's also no proof that they don't (there's evidence, but not proof). While this is a good reason to argue that libel law needs to be reexamined; as the law stands now, I cannot see Singh winning this case.
This isn't Uk libel law it's English and welsh libel law Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different legal system.
(that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against)
Why the "even"?
If Singh loses this then that would be a surprise, but it would also be based on the current interpretation and application of the law. He wont be hung out to dry (Eady's bewildering decision notwithstanding).
It's been known in cases like this in the past for the award to the plaintiffs to be nominal - a couple of pennies. I would hope that if he does lose, the judges take exactly that approach.
Frankly the BCA are acting like a bunch of charlatan's trying to abuse the law to silence legitimate protest and I hope they lose and get hit with punitive costs as a result.
I don't know what combination of words in there are his actual name but I think it's safe to say that whatever the case, this man was born to be a judge.
Britain seems like it could do well to adopt the U.S. Bill of rights.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity. The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's
1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten
Puzzle Daze is now my job
Liar: "It is my opinion that you have lied." Motherfucker: "It is my opinion that you have committed incest." What key difference am I failing to see?
The legal one. Easy.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
I haven't seen a chiropractor in years. Not because it doesn't work, but because it does. Seeing how big an effect it made for me, I learned to adjust my own spine. That wasn't easy. I can get it wrong. It's a very specific adjustment required, not just some random act for a presumed placebo effect.
And that makes sense. We're physical beings. The alignment, balance, symmetry of ourselves as physical bodies - of course that makes a difference, sometimes a big one, in our health. The anti-chiropractic camp would ask us to believe, what?, that we're pure spiritual essence, to which the body is so secondary even in regards to the body's own health that only our mental attitude - as adjusted of course by whatever drugs an orthodox physician might decide to prescribe - makes an "objective" difference in healing? But mental attitude is the essence of "subjective," not objective. Objectively, that body is what we are, and various bodywork therapies, including chiropractic, approach the body with the respect it's due.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.
It is a myth that qualifying statements with "alleged", etc. will protect you from libel actions. Indeed, the fact that you did so can be used to argue that you doubted the truth of your statement but went ahead and made it anyway knowing it could be damaging and/or untrue. Even true statements, if they are made with the intention of causing damage to another's reputation can be libelous...
Namgge
No. Just read Simon's work and you'll find it well-researched and rock solid. The reason he has to face trial is not because he was careless, but a) because the law is incredibly strict, so strict that it causes people to apply self censorship, so strict that it makes the UK the #1 libel tourism resort and b) because he had the ill fortune of having to face Eady, a judge who is known to read the laws in the strictest possible manner and who interprets the things people say in the most slanderous manner possible and then stretches the truth a little bit further just to be sure. According to some, Eady is "clearly diagnosable".
This is not fair. Everybody has Britain in a democratic country and everybody should have freedom of speech. http://ezinearticles.com/?Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&id=3789968
Given that my view has always been that I'd rather live with the British libel laws than the American ones, I was interested by the existence of the website linked in the summary. So I went to look at it. I even downloaded the full report.
Know what? I still can't work out what the problem is. Maybe somebody can explain it to me?
As I understand it, if an American tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, if I want to prosecute for libel, I have to prove that I'm not a baby-strangler - the tabloid is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on me.
Conversely, in England, if a British tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, I just have to prove that they published something, and that it harmed my reputation - so taking in the copy of the paper and showing that it says something bad about me is all I have to do. At this point, the burden of proof is on the tabloid: They have to provide evidence that I'm a baby-strangler.
In other words, if British reporters want to be safe from libel, they can only make claims when they have evidence to back them up. If American reporters want to be safe, they just have to be fairly sure that their claim can't be disproved.
And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.
Reading through the comments on here so far, I see a lot of nonsense written by people who have no clue what our laws are - most /.ers seem to think that you can win a claim of libel even if you can prove that the 'libellous' statement was true, which is absolutely wrong.
So what exactly is the big problem with libel laws in Britain? Given that the website trying to reform it had no answers for me and there are a huge number of people here who seem very passionate on the subject, maybe one of you can explain it.
So.. it has come to this
I have a lot of interest in the placebo effect, dunno why, it's just one of those things that interests me
A study by a knee surgeon http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2119999.stm reported that common surgery was no better than the placebo procedure. Now while that may prove more that the surgery is often unnecessary, the reported benefits and improvements by many of the recipients of the placebo procedure surely demonstrate some effect
A recent Discovery channel series on this introduced another doctor who stated that simulating the operation with manipulation and audio recordings enhanced the statistics of the placebo group even further, but I can't find the data to cite
Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
The question is not whether the right of free speech is protected in theory, but rather if it is protected in practice. If I can be prosecuted for statements of opinion, or true statements of fact, I do not have true freedom of speech.
I read Simon's work and it looks like tripe pandering to the bias of his audience. I also
reviewed not just his work but the BCA response and it doesn't make him look terribly good.
Now I am the sort that's prone to the sort of bias that Singh was trying to pander too but
I also am prone to acknowledge the precision of thinking that someone writing in math or
physics should be accustomed to.
He clearly got bit by a strict interpretation of the letter of the law by someone willing
to challenge what he put in print. It seems he wasn't up to the challenge and if anything
he is taking advantage (more pandering) of people's sympathies about censorship.
The thing about Darwinism is that you only get one mistake.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The wife had a bad shoulder, and a Chiropractor helped a lot each time she visited. Then she found the breast lump herself and after a little neat surgery and some big radiation - no more bad shoulder! We still wonder whether an earlier diagnosis would have been safer, whether it's wisest to try conservative treatment first on something with no other symptoms, or whether the lymphatic surgery just happened to cut a nerve so coincidentally the shoulder's better too. Sadly one cannot be one's own 'control'. Moral - don't ever delay a 'Classic' diagnosis.
On the other hand, there is a reason that newspapers do it - so long as the "alleged" statements come from court proceedings, sticking "alleged" on the front gives them very robust protection against libel lawsuits. (IANAL, so take this with a pinch of salt.)