Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, a Victory For Free Speech
Forget4it was one of several readers to note that British science writer Simon Singh, whose prosecution for libel we have discussed on several occasions, has won an interim victory in a UK appeals court. "The landmark ruling will allow the writer, whose battle has become a catalyst for demands for libel law reform, to rely on a 'fair comment' defense of his statements about chiropractors. It will also strengthen the position of others — from science writers and medical professionals to bloggers — who face libel suits, as the judges made clear the court was not the place to settle scientific controversies."
I'm not a scientist. But I do know that going to the chiropractor leads to feeling great.
What could he have been saying about them? It seems that if you're going to bad mouth an entire profession, there should be some kind of evidence to back it up. It sounds like he's just got it in for chiropractors. And I'm not so sure we can consider it anything but hate speech.
So when can we start having honest discussions about chiropractors and global warming scientists?
Just to be clear, Dr Singh is not being "prosecuted for libel" - that's only for criminal offences, and libel is not a criminal offence, but a civil wrong. He is being sued for libel, in the civil courts, by the BCA.
Yup, the Court used that phrase. The observations on the side aren't legally binding, but they do give a pretty strong indication that the Court was not happy with the insane British libel laws which lead to (as the Court observed) attempting to settle scientific disputes in a court of law.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
A copy of his original article, has been archived here: http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html
Freedom of thought of absolute. Action can be regulated by government. Speech is closer to thought than action, and should be as lightly regulated as possible (e.g. forbidding threatening someone with physical harm). It is interesting that no society has explicitly recognized through law freedom of thought. I would guess this is because it seems obvious and what can government do about it anyway? With new technologies coming such as fMRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri, we should be carefully considering these assumptions. Should someone be imprisoned (or perhaps subject to mandatory treatment) for having sexual thoughts about children? Should airline passengers be subject to brain scans to see if they are terrorists? This technology could well come sooner than society and law can adapt.
My SIG is a P226
Chiropractic is quackery. Of course, in the UK, they spend tax money on homeopathy, too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The appellate court didn't decide the case, they just reversed the lower court on the standard to be used: "fair comment" rather than "objective truth." He still has to go through a trial on whether his column was, in fact, "fair comment."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Freedom of speech? In my UK? It could be more common than you think!
Any false and misleading statement made should then be actionable. If you want to sue Singh for questioning chiropracty's scientific validity, then if and when it is proved conclusively to have no scientific value, every single chiropractor should be civilly liable, even criminally liable, for telling the public that it is valid.
"It is extraordinary that this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words."
Right. If you offend some person or group, you can be bankrupted.
--
BMO
Meanwhile, in another segment of UK law, free speech is being undermined by the criminalization of "child pornography" that does not include actual photos of actual children. Apparently depicting something harmful is as harmful as doing something harmful.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Be careful not to think too highly of this "victory": it essentially says that what Simon Singh says is his personal opinion. That's not the same as saying that what he says is true or false. It's basically saying that whatever Simon Singh says is irrelevant.
Not EXACTLY what I would have liked to see.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=576
and here
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=485#more-485
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm currently reading The Emergence of a Scientific Culture by S. Gaukroger. My interest stems from past readings in epistemology as a study of the methodology of science, and, my interest in Mediterranean death cult religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism as patriarchal control mechanisms, not unlike induced schizo-affective disorders, that come into play in agrarian societies with controlling oligarchies (monarchies) ensconced in developing urban centres. It's my own take on things that's evolved from trying to understand to what extent corruption is fundamental and necessary to democracy. I'm throwing it out in this thread because I think U.K. libel laws are symptomatic of a transition from class structured, shame-face saving patriarchal societies to modern democracies that have successfully tested empirical findings and common law and are putting aside almost Shamanistic believes that words are effectively magical or Gospel.
Cleisthenes in Ancient Greek history is said to have instituted the first democracy. Sketchily put he did it by breaking up the political clout of existing clans by creating voting blocks that abstracted away from the clan bases and instituted time limits on political offices. He also, IIRC, enforced political participation. I'm sure that somewhere in the Federalist Papers there are presumptions that all of us are corrupt, or subject to corruption, and, the American Founding Fathers instituted articles and laws to form a democracy that reflected their belief in the fundamental corrupt character of us all. I'm trying to formulate a view of modern democracy from the underlying idea that as a political institution democracy best addresses corruption. This sort of links up to Churchill's famous dictum that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others because it best addresses the citizenry and politicians of modern democracies as the worst of all peoples except for all the others, and, this because it best addresses our corruptible natures.
I believe modern democracies with universal suffrage given majority and capacity on the part of it's citizens are the most viable forms of modern government because they've stood the test of history in transitioning from agrarian to post industrial urban societies. British libel laws and things like hate laws have considerable merit but reflect a more industrial/agrarian society where class structure and "face" reflect more primitive belief systems wherein words carry magical import. Going into language goes to far afield but mentioning the "debate" between Newton and Leibniz over the discovery of the Calculus and the tribal wars of industrializing Europe give some character to where I'm trying to go with this stuff.
Archeology has in it's body the idea of a three generation window for viewing past cultures. A generation is somewhere between 20 and 30 years. Three generations give a vivid insight into a culture because grandparents, parents and offspring are a highly sympathetic and even empathetic cluster that transitions cultural values. The U.K., like all viable modern democracies, is transitioning to a new perspective that has as it's foundation empirical findings in Science and tested wisdom in law but still has to deal with the fundamental corrupt nature of our kind.
je m'amuse
ideopath @ play
Your error is in assuming that the fact that BadAnalogyGuy used the phrase wrongly means that the phrase itself has no useful meaning. I noticed that both you and he used professions in your discussion, but that's not where "hate speech" is a useful term. It's when speech is used to generate hate about something that isn't reasonably changeable, like a person's skin color or religion, that it takes on meaning. Virg
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
It is, unless and until the quacks manage to overturn this decision, now legal to state that you think Chiropractic treatment is a croc-o-shite, as evidenced by the fact that the chose to defend themselves against people suggesting their services are a croc-o-shite using the legal system rather than any providing some good scientific evidencethat their treatments may in fact not be a croc-o-shite. This is indeed a GoodThing.
In the few cases that Chiropractic treatments have been shown to help, those relating directly to the spine, the same help could equally be given by any physiotherapist or in many cases anyone well trained enough to use massage theraputically.
The original "New Scientist" article can be found here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18731-simon-singh-the-libel-fight-goes-on.html
There is a petition you can sign, anyone, from any country, here (also linked to in the article):
http://libelreform.org/sign
FFS... "In the UK, a Victory For Free Speech" - what sort of bastardised subject is that? Perhaps stick the important bit up front, with the qualifier at the end?
Victory for Free Speech in the UK
You are obviously a scholar of the American legal system
The UK was also responsible for ruling against someone who had on a website defamed (supposedly, as I think telling someone what a religion does is not defamation) the Scientology cult and making certain aspects of its religion known to non practicing people...
and ruled in favor of Scientology, which to me contradicts what this now has been ruled. The English have soo many
backward ways about them, I am part British, and so many times have to laugh at how assenine they are....they still have royalty, in today's day and age, talk about still living in the old world.
Good Day,
First off Chiropractic IS NOT Quackery, that is a Mechanism of Political Medicine to discredit the profession that is doing the most for medical failures of back pain treatment, surgery,chronic pain such as Fibromyalgia and similar pain syndromes. Second, verifiable research has been done on Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation since the 1960's and is the reason that the Political Medical organizations that declared Chiropractic Quackery is a result of the turf war aspects of chiropractic & medicine since it's inception. You might look at the research being done by Harvard School of Medicine and the Logan College of Chiropractic if you have more than three synapses working. Third, Homeopathy, while not as completely researched does exhibit that in certain conditions exhibits active results upon the condition. Fourth, while I'm not a fan of PT since they are trying to take over the practice of Chiropractic which is NOT PT on behalf of organized Medicine within it's practice parameters is helpful, but not as a treatment in and of itself if best pt. results is the goal, Last, Acupuncture has been around for at least 5000 years and the World health organization indicates it's effectiveness in 450+ conditions from all over the globe. Instead of trying to get all the healing arts practices to work together for the benefit of the patient there is no real effort to make the patient the basis of the care rather than the control most MD,s and almost all specialist's I've worked with in the last 35 years don't give a rat's tail about the pt. just their income. Having worked for 9 yrs. in EMS and a few yrs. in critical care as well as 31+ years in Health care as a Chiropractic Physician and Holistic practitioner, I've seen it all so perhaps it is time for change. What is the price of change? Responsibility! Something I've seen little of. Perhaps you were dropped upon your cranium as an infant.
In Service & In Health,
Captain Cautious, DC, DCM, Dip. NBCE, EMT-A, EMICT, DDh.
This essay is a classic.
My favorite quote: "The chiropractic therapeutics rest upon the doctrine that the way to get rid of such pinches is to climb upon a table and submit to a heroic pummeling by a retired piano-mover. This, obviously, is buncombe doubly damned."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
im fairly sure studies have shown that a placebo can reduce perception of pain, eg when a (double blind and controlled) group is given something that is inactive but they are told that it is a painkiller there is a statistically significant effect.
furthermore i believe there is evidence that in one case this might be mediated through spinal neurons/ or spinal reflex systems.
there is evidence that some placebo effect is mediated by endogenous endorphins, because when the a group is given naltrexone/naloxone it blocks the pain reduction that is otherwise seen in the previous type of experiment.
also i have read that this type of placebo effect can be increased by using a particular regime, just as varying the regime in a skinner box can increase the effectiveness of operant conditioning.
so now, tell me that repeatedly taking tiny sugar pills or drops of high percentage alcohol under your tongue, which in itself might be releasing a small amount of dopamine and/or endorphines (dopamine might mediate or potentiate the endorphines) and so may be more effective in a repetitive or other particular regime, might not be a means of harnessing and enhancing a placebo effect in humans.
i think this is the point of the gp, homeopathy typically consists of the above type of repetitive administration of a "placebo" and the result might at least help people to deal with physical or psychological pain and discomfort.
all without taking any expensive or addictive drug, or risking side effects ;)