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 Today's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to reform Britain's horrifically outdated libel laws (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against), and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it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."

Comments

Summary writer is a full blown moron

[nedlohs]

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.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[bsDaemon]

I know! Britain has *just as much* freedom of speech as China does!

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[wjousts]

Agreed. Less free speech than China is clearly hyperbole. Libel laws are a complete mess and need reform but comparing freedom of speech in Britain to (lack of) freedom of speech in China adds nothing to the debate.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Hyperbole, Motherfucker! DO YOU SPEAK IT?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[TACD]

Jesus Christ all this talk of hyperbole makes me want to shoot a nuclear rocket through my fucking head.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[CherniyVolk]

Truth is far stranger than fiction.

Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world? A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech? Never mind other freedoms. Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?

Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE! ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!"

There, does that make you feel proud? Happy? Secure? Free? Is that an example of free speech, a posting on /. a couple of simple sentences? Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.

Let's take it up a step further. I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks. The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of. Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you. If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively. And guess what? Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.

So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).

No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords. Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm. So then, I'm just wasting breath.

People start forming up around me, listening. A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance. Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation. In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people. Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws. Do I have a permit to rally? Do I have a permit for public announcement? Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way. Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed. Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power. So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits. If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning. But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.

Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people. Then you have libel suits brought against me. Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger. The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.

So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech. Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power. You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right. Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.

In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech. In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an

More Importantly

[JamesP]

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)

Humbug!

[calibre-not-output]

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.

What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:What a joke..

[grub]

My family used chiropractors for years; the industry is so good as passing itself off as mainstream medicine, that I actually had to see the Simon Singh case to realize that chiropractice is woo-woo alternative medicine.

Just look for peer-reviewed studies that show it does anything. If I recall, James Randi's $1,000,000 prize is open to Chiropractors who can show they can do anything other than help some minor back pain.

Re:What a joke..

[Monkeedude1212]

I suppose that depends on what your Chiropractor is claiming to fix.

For example, my girlfriend visits a chiropractor because one of her spinal discs pinches a nerve in her upper back and that causes backpain and headaches.

She says it helps - and I take her word for it that someone cracking the back is helping the issues aligned with her spine.

Re:What a joke..

[History's Coming To]

Fair enough. I'm in the UK too. However, I would like to say the following: homoeopathy is fraud. I work in the science section of a large bookshop in Edinburgh, I should be easy enough to find and will identify myself if asked.

Bring on the lawyers. I could intentionally produce a fraudulent, counterfeit, fake homoeopathic remedy (ie a small phial of water), but it would be indistinguishable from a "real" one. I would welcome a court's attention to the matter.

Chiroprators

[Locke2005]

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".

Judge not impressed

[rugatero]

"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

Re:Judge not impressed

[Eil]

It's probably hard to be impressed by anything at all when your formal title and name works out to be Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge.

Re:Chiropratic is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[VJ42]

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.

Legal Context

[Alistair Hutton]

Just to give you some idea of what is going on. Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady, he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges. Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him, well beyond the bounds of Britain's already incredibly strict laws.

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