Science and the Laws of Libel

[~ARES]

The Premise:

I once read an article (link: Telegraph) concerning a science writer named Simon Singh and his scrap with the chiropractic community. Singh claimed that many of the chiropractic practices used to treat children's ailments were "bogus", and the British Chiropractic Association fought back with a libel lawsuit. In a recent article of New Scientist magazine (issue May 16-22), it was brought to my attention that Singh had lost the case.

I almost skipped the article, finding it slightly irrelevant, before an editorial quip caught my attention and showed me my err.

Libel laws exist to protect people's reputations but are open to abuse as a way to stifle legitimate scientific debate.

This has a lot of controversy. Sure, others could have followed Singh's footsteps and harm the integrity of the BCA if he had won the ruling. But Singh's original article, published in the Guardian (link: saved article before withdrawn), wasn't pure libel; it had facts. What could this mean for science? It might have to be careful about challenging the validity of anything in fear of being sued.

Similarly, an Israeli company named Nemesysco has apparently threatened to sue a couple of researchers if they didn't retract an article critical of a lie-detecting device of their manufacture (link: coverage by the University of Stockholm). The pair of researchers decided to agree to take down their statements in fear of being found guilty of libel... even with their scientific backing!



The Debate:

I'm sure it wasn't only chiropractors and the lie-detector-makers who cheered for these outcomes... my bigger concern are all the creationist/intelligent design supporters who stand to benefit from this potentially damaging precedent. These specific rulings pertain only to Israel, England and Wales, but I'm sure nearly every developed country has laws addressing libel. How do you guys feel about libel and slander laws, and their potential abuse against shutting down scientific debate? How about the court rulings in the United States that allow Intelligent Design to be taught in some states as an "alternative theory" in science classrooms, which follow the same mindset of forgoing real science to "be fair" to those who lack evidence and proof?

 

[RDK]

I saw a post about this over at Panda's Thumb.

Unfortunately, laws like this break the self-correcting nature of the free speech system. If something is bull****, I should be able to come out and say so. Protecting people, companies, etc. against libel of this sort is more harmful than it is helpful, because as obviously demonstrated by that article, it allows things like pseudoscience to run about without being criticized.

A healthy dose criticism is good for everybody, and it goes part and parcel with free speech.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah unfortunately this is a case where a libel law suit is bogus. Libel law suits were set into place to protect the a persons character and reputation from unreasonable criticisms and the like.

For instance if I was in a campaign with RDK and I said he has sex with farm animals that's a slander on his character and morals. He would be fully able under the law to sue me for damages. I think it's pretty obvious our legal system has a lot of kinks to work out, fortunately our legal system isn't set in stone.

 

[~ARES]

I saw a post about this over at Panda's Thumb.

Unfortunately, laws like this break the self-correcting nature of the free speech system. If something is bull****, I should be able to come out and say so. Protecting people, companies, etc. against libel of this sort is more harmful than it is helpful, because as obviously demonstrated by that article, it allows things like pseudoscience to run about without being criticized.

A healthy dose criticism is good for everybody, and it goes part and parcel with free speech.

It's true. A case-by-case basis would be much better, but a blanket ruling like this is severely detrimental to solid, factual debunkery. As Aesir said, "thankfully our legal system isn't set in stone", but precedents certainly have their weight in court.

Also, not sure what Panda's Thumb is. xD