Beware English libel laws
Jack of Kent has been covering a story that has been generating a great deal of heat and fury amongst scientists, writers, academics, and virtually everyone who supports freedom of speech. It concerns the British Chiropractic Association suing the highly respected science write Simon Singh over an article he wrote in the comment section of the Guardian.
In his article he criticised the BCA for promoting treatments for potentially serious aliments affecting children without clinical evidence for them. The offending passage is:
“The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
Astonishingly, the judge ruled that the word “bogus” meant deliberate and targeted dishonesty. Under English libel laws, Singh would have to prove that the BCA was being deliberately dishonest. An impossible task. It’s obviously not what Singh was saying; he was saying the BCA was promoting treatments for which there was no evidence of their effecacy (or safety, for that matter).
Singh certainly knows what he’s talking about. He’s co-author (with Edzard Ernst) of Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine, in which most alternative treatments – including chiropractic – are shown to be worthless.
Bravely, and at the urging of his many supporters, Singh is now appealing this ruling. It’s brave because defending a libel suite is a particularly expensive business in England. Having already coughed up £100,000 defending his right to speak freely, he could now face up to £3,250,000! Compared to other European countries, England is more than three times more expensive than the next most expensive country, Ireland. Ireland in turn is many times more expensive than any other European country.
But what does this mean to those who don’t live in England? A lot, if anything you write has even the vaguest possibility of being consumed in England. A new industry, libel tourism, has been spawned by Englands outlandish libel laws.
Seen one way, it is nothing short of a scandal. Small non-British news outlets and humble non-British authors (in many cases catering almost wholly to a non-British public) are being sued in English courts by rich, mighty foes. The cost of litigation is so high ($200,000 for starters, and $1m-plus once you get going) that they cannot afford to defend themselves. The plaintiffs often win by default, leaving their victims humiliated and massively in debt.
A Ukrainian publication was sued by a wealthy Ukrainian. At first there was a settlement (remember it’s prohibitively expensive to defend such an action), and later the wealthy Ukrainian won another, undefended judgement. The English system virtually guarantees that you can squeeze cash out of your victim just by accusing him of libel. And all it takes is some tenuous readership link to England. In this case, barely 100 subscribers were from England.
A small, totally Ukrainian website was successfully sued on the same grounds. Any alarm bells ringing yet? These publications are not even in English and couldn’t have been read or understood by more than a handful of English citizens. How much more at risk are English-speaking writers?
Well at least the US is getting serious about it. As described in the Wall Street Journal, a New York-based author, Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in England by Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, named Bin Mahfouz as a possible funder of terrorism. The book was published in New York. But a few copies found their way to England, giving Bin Mahfouz the pretense to sue. On advice from her lawyer, Ehrenfeld didn’t contest the matter.
The English court found against her and entered a judgment of $225,000. She immediately sought protection from the order through a New York court, which ruled that it was a legislative matter. The New York legislature, to its credit, passed legislation to give Ehrenfeld and other New York citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration that their works are protected under American law.
A campaign for a similar law has been stuttering along. The latest version submitted to the Senate, the Free Speech Protection Act, also gives American-based litigants an additional right to countersue for harassment.
A campaign has been started by UK-based Sense About Science, The law has no place in scientific disputes. It has broad, high profile support. Signatories include Richard Dawkins, Derren Brown, Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais – and thousands more, even a few lawyers.
You can sign the statement here.
Comments
One Comment on Beware English libel laws
-
HRSFANS.org » Keep Libel Laws Out Of Science on
Fri, 5th Jun 2009 6:28 pm
[...] a facebook group created to support him, and to the numerous bloggers and journalists who have been following his case. Throughout, Singh has been admirably even-tempered, presenting his thoughts [...]
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
-
Recommended
