Slashdot Mirror
UK To Give Peer-Reviewed Science Libel Protection
scibri writes "England is finally getting around to updating its notoriously plaintiff-friendly libel laws, which have been extensively criticized for stifling scientific debate in the past few years, such as in the case of Simon Singh. The government introduced a defamation bill last week that would extend explicit protection to statements in scientific or academic journals — providing the work was properly peer reviewed. The protection would also extend to reports of academic and scientific conferences. The proposed legislation is popular among the UK's researchers and journalists, but a similar law on whistleblower protection has had mixed reviews in the U.S."
Unless I'm misunderstanding the Nature article and Google links, the title of this post is misleading: this is about England & Wales (which share their legal system) rather than the rest of the UK - there's an article here about the different implications that such a law would have on the Scottish legal system (English libel reform raises new Scottish question). I haven't seen any indication whether we'd adopt this in Northern Ireland.
What about truth being imune?
You know, a paper that reports the results of a study, without jumping to conclusions, expressing unrelated opinions, or stating facts that aren't suported by the study being imune. While a paper that does those things being subject to libel acusations.
Rethinking email
If anything, it's the opponents of science that are guilty of groupthink. Have you ever read a peer-reviewed publication? The kinds of debate that you'll see around peer-reviewed articles makes political debates look like playground banter by comparison. Nothing gets reviewed with more scrutiny and no-holds barred snark than scientific studies.
Take the time to read a few journals, and to follow the debates between academics. Pick a subject, and follow it through the process. If you're honest with yourself, you'll have to come to the conclusion that it's scientists who put their ideas to the test, and it's people like yourself who use buzzwords like "groupthink" who cling to received ideas without a semblance of critical thought.
The Slashdot article seems to single out a single part of the bill for some reason. The actual bill has a lot more, including a "truth" defence.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Now why would he want to do something like that, when its much better for his ego to buy into a big vast conspiracy theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The point is that the law is going to recognise that making a reasonable statement based on proper scientific data is demonstrably true, and as such cannot be libel. The internationally recognised process of peer review will be considered the arbiter of "proper scientific data" (my phrase). It leaves the door open for cases involving poorly collected data, I'm imagining something like one cosmetics company suing another because they do they suggest their product is better than the plaintiff's based on a biased sample of 300.
Bloggers, journalists and the like will have some protection if they're quoting peer reviewed data/comments in context because if the original isn't libellous then they can't be guilty of repeating it.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
"Main institution"? There are more than one scientific and academic journal.
A journal certainly isn't the arbiter of what is libel, a court does that.
This bit of the law only adds a defence to libel for scientific and academic publication that meets certain standards.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Defamation and slander laws choke the free flow of true information. Nowadays everyone can have a blog, and any libelous info can be quickly confirmed or denied by the checking out the website of the alleged miscreant.
I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.
Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.
I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.
The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The point is that the law is going to recognise that making a reasonable statement based on proper scientific data is demonstrably true, and as such cannot be libel.
The better view is that it makes "scientific or academic journal[s]" (one presumes bona fide journals, though the Bill doesn't make it clear how that might be assessed.) a privileged forum, much as courts and parliament already are.
The internationally recognised process of peer review will be considered the arbiter of "proper scientific data" (my phrase). It leaves the door open for cases involving poorly collected data
By s7(5), a "fair and accurate copy of, extract from or summary" of the article is also privileged (again as is currently the case for court and parliamentary reporting).
The problem, which you point to is that it somewhat misconstrues the role of peer review to understand it as a guarantee of finality (ie. the truth of the publication). Rather peer review is a threshold, a seat at the table of the expert debate. We, the ordinary "(wo)men in the street," need to put some time between publication and acceptance of the conclusions in order to allow the expert community to render their judgement.
We have the same unfair and unjust libel laws as the US, where the plaintiff has no protection against a defendant with deep enough pockets?
No you don't. The UK libel laws are significantly worse in many ways. They're much more broad, and can be applied to people more or less anywhere in the world. Read up on some of the points raised during the Simon Singh case for more details.
I really am curious as to how preventing people from being sued for telling the truth is a terrible mistake?
Not to take issue with much of what you wrote, but ...
by definition a defamatory statement is untrue
No, by definition a defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of a natural person. Justification is a defence.
Four, there's no such thing as "UK law"; Scotland has a different system to England and Wales.
Genuine question: Can you explain the difference between the various categories of primary legislation, such as UK Public General Acts, under which classification both the 1952 and 1966 Defamation Acts are found; UK Local Acts; Acts of the Scottish Parliament; Acts of the English Parliament; Acts of the Old Irish Parliament; &c.? Non-UK/English/Scottish/Welsh lawyers could be forgiven for some confusion.
Slashdot: home of the false dilemma.
And the nigger joke. And the pasty obese white guys who mod them down as fast as they can to prove how cool and not-racist they are.
Even though niggers don't browse this site.
Of course they do. You're here.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You're using the common definition, not the legal one.
"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."
If it merely meant "saying bad things" it would also include mere insults and vulgar abuse, which are not legally defamatory.
As to why Scotland has a separate system, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe vested interests prevented them being merged along with the Parliaments back when Jimmy took over from Liz. Maybe they forgot.
But the point still stands that when someone makes that mistake it's a good indicator that they don't know what they're talking about, and are probably more than a little overweight.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're using the common definition, not the legal one.
Very funny, you tell a lawyer (albeit a non-practitioner) he is using the common defn and not the legal one and then you quote from an online dictionary. Now it may be the legal defn in the US, I would not want to venture an opinion.
How do you explain that at common law truth was an irrelevance in criminal libel? Moreover in my jurisdiction, NSW, until 2006, truth by itself was no defence to defamation. More to the point, the UK [sic] 1952 Act and the proposed Bill, are explicit about justification and truth respectively being defences.
The distinction between a tort (and also a crime) and a defence may seem like a fine one, but it relates to the mistake the "puppy-huffing kiddy-fiddler" made in observing that "all statements are presumed false."
My understanding is this: The onus of proof lies upon a plaintiff to make out that the elements of defamation, namely that the defendant published defamatory imputations. While the courts (and we here rely on British as well as Australian precedent) have come up with a number of tests, perhaps the most accepted is that the imputation would lower the estimation of plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable member of the community, or some similar formulation.
It is open to the defendant to raise a defence. Because they are the party raising it the affirmanti principle applies, i.e. the onus of proof is on the defendant to establish the substantial truth of the statements. Hence it appears to the legally naive that statements are presumed false. As an analytical type you will perceive the difficulty inherent in the notion of a "defence of justification/truth" existing and the necessity of a plaintiff to establish untruth as an element of defamation, no?
The current Bill makes this situation clear:
2 Truth
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained is substantially true.
My emphasis
If it merely meant "saying bad things" it would also include mere insults and vulgar abuse, which are not legally defamatory
I never said it meant "saying bad things". Simply put it means injuring the reputation of a natural person. Should you care for a real dictionary defn, (as opposed to my simplified legal one), the OED has "the action of defaming, or attacking any one's good name." If insults and vulgar abuse sufficiently damages an individual's reputation then they are defamatory of course.
As to why Scotland has a separate system, your guess is as good as mine.
That was not my question. My question was what distinguishes a UK General Public Act from either an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act of the English Parliament?
read the article about Simon Singh which started the process for change
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
No. Scotland has always had a separate legal system, largely due to being an independent country until 1603. Neither legal system was imposed on the other nation at the time, and they've mostly remained separate since.
Since the Scottish legal system is built on different principles to the English one, not all English Acts of Parliament apply to Scotland, although some do. Needless to say, it's complicated.
In terms of libel, England and Scotland are very different, to the extent that libel isn't even a specific offence in Scotland. Rather, it's counted (along with slander) as defamation, with no distinction made between written and spoken defamation.