Science has it even worse in the states (new window)

.

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

Simon Singh was farked over. Jack of Kent has everything anyone needs on this.

WE never buy cars from Boggus (new window) Ford

/yes spelled with two G's
//still pronounced the same way
///Car dealerships meh
////slashy slash

Simon says...

boogers!

Release the... BOGUS!

/wonders if anyone gets the reference

/whuh?

Is it just me or does the article meander well away from the point during the first few paragraphs?

Grandmas Candy Dish: /whuh?

Damn you. If I didn't have eleventygajillion tabs open, I may have gotten here before you. No, instead I had to wait for the main page to load again, then load this page. By the time the page had rendered you were already here. Damn you.

Grandmas Candy Dish: /whuh?

Came for this. Leaving happy.

My ass will surely defeat this poncey judge.

/ass not impressed

palmer's personal history is interesting but what does it have to do with the story?

British libel laws are funny. Even if you can prove your statements to be truthful, said truth is often considered an "irrelevant defense", and does not necessarily absolve one from such charges.

tara

Just sets up the point that the originator of chiropractics was a quack. Just as the first paragraphs sets up the point that Singh is a man of science. Yet he is going to lose since provable facts will have no place in this case

darrent83: So if I were to say for example "a chiropractor is just a glorified masseuse that thinks they are a real doctor". I could be sued?

No, the point of the decision of the case is that the Judge decided that the journalist had effectively accused the chiropractors of being frauds. You are accusing them of being deluded, but acting in good faith, as they believe what they are doing is correct in your version. Essentially the entire case comes down to whether you think the journalist is implicitly accusing them of fraud (which is a crime, and thus to publish such a claim the journalist needs signicant proof and is open to be challenged in court by the aggreived party), or not.

I would hope/think that the journalist should win the case on appeal, but it certainly isn't an absolutely straightforward case due to the differing ways in which the same word can be interpreted by different people, and of course the entire context of the claim has to be considered.

ladyfortuna: Is it just me or does the article meander well away from the point during the first few paragraphs?

That whole thing was kind of hard to read.

I understand this is where Chiropractors in Boise go to ski.

vudukungfu: boogers!



BOOGER!

I tend to be a lurker but this stuff just gets my dander up. I won't argue that many Farkers will attest to the help that their chiro's provide and I might consider using one if I ever develop back pain. But to make the jump that spinal manipulation can cure colic, infections, diabetes, MS etc. etc. is absolute fraud. If you ignore science, it doesnt give you the ability to claim delusion. There may be, in fact, chiro Farkers here, but the minute you claim infections can be cured by manipulation you can STFU. BTW, thousands of cases of N=1 doesnt equal science.

How retarded. Due to it's self-correcting nature, there is no such thing as libel in science. The truth will be uncovered eventually no matter what, so it doesn't matter how much anyone "libels" it - witness the tobacco industry's ultimately futile efforts to absolve tobacco of causing illness, and the same thing is currently in the process of happening with global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers (though not quickly enough, damn them). All of these groups have tried to libel science as their chief tactic, and all have lost, because libel simply doesn't work in science. "Wanting to believe (and make others believe)" just doesn't have the power that evidence and inductive reasoning do.

Science requires open discourse - even blunt discourse. Every developed nation should simply write it into law that libel doesn't apply when it comes to scientific discourse.

karma- I agree with you in theory. Scientists/Health professionals have better things to do than sit in a courtroom. The snake oil salesmen, otoh, make their bones by sitting in a courtroom. And there are plenty of snake oil salesmen within the body of science as well. If things get to the courtroom, arguments should only be based on power of evidence and inductive reasoning as you put it.

I'm sure the Head-On people are watching with interest.

This just in: British libel and free speech laws are very different that those in the United States.

British libel laws are funny. Even if you can prove your statements to be truthful, said truth is often considered an "irrelevant defense", and does not necessarily absolve one from such charges.

example please, afaik, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander in all cases.

"Bartlett bought the first car Davenport had seen and paid his father back by running him down on the day of the Palmer School of Chiropractic Homecoming Parade."

The kid had the right idea.

darrent83

So if I were to say for example "a chiropractor is just a glorified masseuse that thinks they are a real doctor". I could be sued?


Possibly. Easy solution: preface everything you say with "I believe" or "In my opinion".

What about Rad?.

The real story is not very funny and even quite tedious. The British Legal system has whored itself out to every farkin nutjob with enough money to sue for libel. All you need is the ability to bring the case up in the British Judicial System and "Ker-ching"
Guess the only country who is not exposed to this kind of reverse liberal agenda because the Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution?

The UK Libel law has 3 main principles that mean all you need is enough money to bring the charge and - you sir, are a winner!

They are:

1. Burden of proof: Libel has a reverse burden of proof. Once the claimant establishes that there has been a defamatory statement (which is an easy test), the onus is on the defendant to show whether there is absolute/ qualified privilege, fair comment, or justification. Contrary to the principles of the Common Law and natural justice, the odds are stacked against the defendant.

2. Damages: Libel is actionable per se (only trespass shares this quality). The claimant does not have to show any loss before bringing a case. If the claimant succeeds, he/she is entitled to "general damages".

3. Costs: Are so high that many never counter sue. If they receive a writ, they settle and apologise as a matter of policy, even if what they said was true.

Bottom line, along with Muslim fanatics, Polish welfare scroungers, every political nut-job in Christendom, and of course, elected Politicians who are butt-farkin every voter with bent expense claims, the UK is once again the proud home to corrupt despicable practices that everyone in the world can abuse - go on, sue me you bastards.

Or he could go on and risk losing the full million by ensnaring himself in the rapacious world of an English judiciary that seems ever eager to bow to the demands of Saudi oil billionaires, Russian oligarchs and the friends of Saddam Hussein to censor critics and punish them with staggering damages and legal fees.


I stopped reading after that paragraph

I'm an excellent driver: The real story is not very funny and even quite tedious. The British Legal system has whored itself out to every farkin nutjob with enough money to sue for libel. All you need is the ability to bring the case up in the British Judicial System and "Ker-ching"
Guess the only country who is not exposed to this kind of reverse liberal agenda because the Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution?

The UK Libel law has 3 main principles that mean all you need is enough money to bring the charge and - you sir, are a winner!

They are:

1. Burden of proof: Libel has a reverse burden of proof. Once the claimant establishes that there has been a defamatory statement (which is an easy test), the onus is on the defendant to show whether there is absolute/ qualified privilege, fair comment, or justification. Contrary to the principles of the Common Law and natural justice, the odds are stacked against the defendant.

2. Damages: Libel is actionable per se (only trespass shares this quality). The claimant does not have to show any loss before bringing a case. If the claimant succeeds, he/she is entitled to "general damages".

3. Costs: Are so high that many never counter sue. If they receive a writ, they settle and apologise as a matter of policy, even if what they said was true.

Bottom line, along with Muslim fanatics, Polish welfare scroungers, every political nut-job in Christendom, and of course, elected Politicians who are butt-farkin every voter with bent expense claims, the UK is once again the proud home to corrupt despicable practices that everyone in the world can abuse - go on, sue me you bastards.

Britain has an incredibly strict set of Libel laws because of how out of control UK tabloids are. They will routinely go up to the edge of the law and often don't care about going over the line.

An example from the Daily Mail:



They're still immensely proud of this headline (yes I know the background of this, doesn't change how much the nature of this headline sickens me).

At the moment the Tabloids hold insane amount of power and could quite easily ruin the lives of any person in the country. The libel laws in the UK are designed to give the common citizen as much of a defence as possible.

Whitewabbit: British libel laws are funny. Even if you can prove your statements to be truthful, said truth is often considered an "irrelevant defense", and does not necessarily absolve one from such charges.

example please, afaik, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander in all cases.

Not true in the UK. Truth is a defense, but not an absolute defense in all cases.

If a newspaper published "Gordon Brown might be a child molestor", they could claim it is literally the truth, but that wouldn't stop them being able to be challenged in court for it.

Whitewabbit: British libel laws are funny. Even if you can prove your statements to be truthful, said truth is often considered an "irrelevant defense", and does not necessarily absolve one from such charges.

example please, afaik, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander in all cases.

The Truth is only a defence if you can prove it to the require standards in court.

Guardian is sometimes annoying but they do sometimes have a point.

This one is a bit Romeroized.
(from the comments on the article)


Don't criticise, or we'll sue

Whitewabbit: example please, afaik, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander in all cases.

Nope. (pops)

clueyee: WE never buy cars from Boggus (new window) Ford

/yes spelled with two G's
//still pronounced the same way
///Car dealerships meh
////slashy slash

My last name is Bogus - one G, pronounced the right way. I hate having to write checks. I always have to hear the same joke. :)

Grandmas Candy Dish: /whuh?

Put them in the iron Maiden

EXCELLENT!!!


Put them to death!

BOGUS!

This is disgraceful, that someone speaking in the interests of proper science can be sued for libel. Most retarded is the fact that the man with all the evidence on his side (supporting his original statements) can lose. Scary stuff.

Simon Singh is a great author. Anyone with any interest in cryptology should pick up The Code Book, it explains pretty much the entire history of codebreaking in fairly easy-to-understand terms even for a layperson.

Britain seriously needs to work on those libel laws. The guilty-until-proven-innocent nature of the law as it stands is inexcusable in a free society.