Under British libel law you’re guilty until proven innocent, and the newspapers seem to be okay with that
May 19th, 2009You probably already know this, but the science writer Simon Singh is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for referring to chiropractic treatments of some conditions as ‘bogus’. You probably know that British libel law perversely assumes guilt until innocence is proven. (Sign this petition to change that.) You probably know that Judge Eady ruled in a preliminary hearing that ‘bogus’ means ‘deliberately fraudulent’, even though this is not what Singh meant, and that unless he can get this changed on appeal he has little hope of winning the case. This is, of course, roughly the same as if someone sued you for calling them a bitch and the judge ruled that you had to pay £100,000 if you couldn’t prove the plaintiff was of the genus canis.
I assume that you know all this because you are reading a blog, and at that a blog which frequently mentions science and political issues. You are exactly the kind of person I would expect to know exactly this kind of thing. Let’s take a step back and see what you’d know if you got your news from newspapers and TV.
The Guardian, whose paper carried the in-no-way-offending comment in the first place, have published precisely one follow-up that I have found:
Singh said he would like to fight it, because he is unhappy about the interpretation put on his words. “But there is a bigger issue about the state of our libel laws and how easy it is to be a science journalist or any journalist,” he said.
They elected not to mention what that wider issue is or that the interpretation put on Singh’s words was totally unreasonable, although they did mention that they bankrolled his legal defence (as they did for Ben Goldacre when Matthias Rath sued him) – frankly if newspapers do stop being able to make money then the Guardian should consider applying for charitable status. They do more good than many groups that have it.
The Times has published, as far as I can find, exactly one sentence on the subject, which was totally uncritical of the case and which they used to make Singh sound like a bad person and to put words in his mouth:
On Thursday the [Edinburgh Skeptics] society is addressed by Dr Simon Singh, the author who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for his dismissals of the efficacy of chiropractise.
The Telegraph have not mentioned it, nor have the Independent. BBC.co.uk has nothing on it, as does channel4.com. Bizarrely, Sky News can’t sort search results by date so I have no idea whether they’ve deigned to mention it. (The above searches were performed with the sites’ own search functions, so they’ve only themselves to blame if I’ve missed anything.)
That’s a bit crap, considering this is a story about newspapers. The Telegraph, having exhausted all the abuses of the Parliamentary expenses (which a Guardian journalist did all the legwork for), have set about listing everything else MPs have claimed for and trying to insinuate a scandal around each one where generally none exists, and yet don’t apparently have room for even one article about a genuine scandal that is representative of a massive and unwarranted threat of litigation that hangs over them every time they publish any kind of comment piece.
I’ve said before that I get my news from blogs, Twitter, friends and the Internet. I said at the time that newspapers were still a vital primary source, but they’re just not. We know about this from Nature, NewScientist, nerds on Twitter, blogs and so forth, not from newspapers — despite it being about them. The same was true of the planned law to exempt MPs’ expenses from the Freedom of Information Act — despite their willingness to cash in on the fruits of that victory.
We don’t need the newspapers any more. Clearly we can do this on our own.
[More Help]
May 19th, 2009 at 20:56
“Private Eye” has been following this story for some time, as well as highlighting the other libel cases in which Eady has been setting legal precedents, all on his own initiative, which are gradually destroying the freedom of the press in this country. However, the press themselves seem far more interested in Susan Boyle`s makeover, or Jordan and Peter`s “breakup”, and as you say the great British public remain oblivious to what is going on. (”Private Eye” was, to the best of my knowledge, the only publication to print the truth about Maxwell – before he died! – the rest were all shit-scared of the fat bastard!!) M`learned friend Eady is a cunt (he`ll probably sue if he reads that!) as it looks as if he has a dictionary all of his own with his own private word definitions!! (Lewis Carrol again: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”) In MY dictionary, and I am sure in most people`s, “bogus” means “spurious” – “neither more nor less” – and in any case Simon Singh goes on to make clear his meaning here! Eady has become a law unto himself. He is supposed to be upholding the rights of the people of this land, not of a select few of the rich and powerful, and the damage he is doing is going to affect us all for a very long time to come. I`m glad you raised this – it has appeared on Mediawatchwatch today as well.
May 20th, 2009 at 00:13
Eady won’t sue you. He’s hardly likely to draw himself as a judge, is he?
I did see a lot of crap about Susan Boyle when I searched for “Simon Singh”. Not sure why. Didn’t read them.
May 21st, 2009 at 19:38
You`re right there of course – I don`t think even Eady would be allowed to adjudicate on an action brought by himself, and everyone else knows that the appelation is perfectly accurate. Silly me – I can relax now! BTW, talking of cunts, did you read that The Most Revolting Vincent Nichols, in commenting on the abuse at Catholic institutions, has already caused a furore by making remarks about the need for “courage” by the perpetrators in facing up to what they have done. He may well be right, of course, and at least he did call for them to be brought to justice, but again all he seems really concerned about is the damage that they have done to the reputation of the Catholic Church! “Plus ca change” etc!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 08:54
It did occur to me actually that Eady might have been the inspiration for that very funny line of Melchett`s at the commencement of Blackadder`s court martial: “Hand me the black cap, will you – I`ll be needing that”! He could hardly have been the inspiration behind Carroll`s “No!No! Sentence first – verdict afterwards” can he?!!
June 16th, 2009 at 15:19
More bad news re Mr Injustice Eady today: he has decided that, as blogging is a “public rather than a private activity” (his own personal opinion again – soon to be enshrined in British law), the identity of Night Jack – who has been blogging about the police force and government ministers – must be revealed! This does not augur well for the future!!
August 13th, 2009 at 13:14
The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be written and not what has been written. http://www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site
What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet. This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists
April 1st, 2010 at 11:20
I sincerely hope that this news is not another April Fool’s joke in very bad taste!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm
April 15th, 2010 at 13:45
Action dropped. Bet it’s been a right pain in the neck for them!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8621880.stm
July 5th, 2010 at 09:41
Another dose of the same medicine!
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2010/07/05/doctors-data-doctors-data/