Using the law to stifle scientific debate
Maxine Clarke
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 09:39 UTC
A court case between one of Britain’s leading science writers and an organization representing alternative medicine practitioners is causing renewed concern about the potential for libel laws to stifle debate on scientific issues (Nature News, 13 May 2009).
Simon Singh, author of Fermat’s Last Theorem and other books, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote for the Guardian newspaper last year. In an unusual move, the BCA is suing Singh personally, and not the newspaper.
The case has international implications for science reporting and journalism more generally, warns Singh. It comes against a background of increasing concern in many quarters that litigants opt for British courts as they are seen as easier places to get a favourable result; a problem labeled ‘libel tourism’.
Neil White, a partner at legal firm Taylor Wessing (which undertakes some legal work for Nature_), says the case should serve as a warning not just for science writers, but more generally for scientists and all who write about similar topics. “I think there is a degree of ignorance on the part of scientists about libel law, particularly UK libel law,” he says. “I do think there are some scientists who are rather arrogant about it, and think because they’re scientists with a view to express on a matter of potentially considerable importance they can say what they please. That is just not the case. The lesson I think they need to learn is you can usually say what you want to say in a way that doesn’t expose you to litigation, by taking a bit of care and taking a bit of advice.”
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, UK, says, “Recent history shows quite clearly there is a danger people can be silenced by the financial and legal might of their opponents.”
What are your views? Please let us know, either by commenting here or at the "_Nature News website":http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html (where there is a comment in favour of the BCA, as well as others taking the opposite view). How confident are you about expressing a scientific opinion publicly? How well-informed are you about the legal consequences of what you might write on your blog or for a publication?
See also this Nature Network blog post by Stephen Curry; and this alert by Brian Clegg .
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I fully agree that a session on legal issues would be very helpful during the Science Online meeting.
We do need to be aware of our responsibilities as writers to the host/publishing outlet – Nature Network in this case. -
There are many things that can be said, and are being said, about this topic.
One point I’ll make in response to one of David’s is that the story he tells is of an Editorial he published in a journal. One issue with user-generated content is that this content is posted by an individual with no independent editorial process. When a journal publishes an article, the editors work on the text in various ways, and can (and do) take legal advice if appropriate during this time – and part of the expertise of being an editor or journalist is to be aware of potential legal concerns. As Neil White is quoted as saying, it is often a question of wording, or use of words. This type of support is not usually available to people blogging, commenting or otherwise writing material on the internet. Of course, in my opinion, this is one of the very many valuable services that the editing profession has to offer!
-
Via Richard Grant, there is also a useful blog post at Archaeoastronomy called blogging and the English law.
-
Thanks everyone for commenting here. This is an interesting discussion. We will soon be posting a public explanation of why Stephen Curry’s post was taken down. Stay tuned.
-
I just had a thought: could the taking down of Stephen’s post somehow be construed as a ‘precedent’ implying that NPG in some way accepts responsibility for the content of all blogs and fora on NN – and, hence, is responsible for screening all posts in one way or another? Just wondering – what a can of worms that would be.
-
As I understand English libel law (and of course no-one really does), it is a very tricky one whether a forum/platform is responsible for posted content in the way Steffi is asking about, though the answer is mostly “in English law, yes”.
If you run a forum where anyone can comment, e.g. anonymously, you could certainly argue that you simply could not vet what people post and thus could not be responsible. However, this would not wash if someone complained and you (the forum / publisher) didn’t then take down or amend the complained-of comment. From that point on you could certainly be sued. That is partly why fora (and newspapers) in the UK tend to have an automatic response of taking things down once a complaint is received, rather than actually considering the specifics.
I suspect that if you run a forum or blog where people have to register to be able to post comments, then a lawyer could try and argue that you (the “publisher”) have an intrinsic vetting process, and are thus more responsible than in an “anyone comments anonymously” system. And if you have to approve people who ask to start a blog, then the lawyer could probably make that argument much more strongly, i.e. you approved the blogger, so you cannot disclaim responsibility for what they then write on your site.
The law in England, then, basically does not make any distinction between a newspaper publisher and its writers, and a forum owner and its bloggers. That is how I understand it, anyway, though (usual disclaimer) I.Am.Not.A.Lawyer. Just someone who would rather not get sued!
Of course, if you go with people like Bora Zivkovic/Coturnix, who think that within a few years a vast fraction of the population will be posting user-generated content, then the idea that people will NOT routinely commit libel under current English law, mostly inadvertently, is an utter nonsense. They quite clearly will be (libelling one another, that is).
So, either practically everything that people post online will be fair game for libel action in the English courts if anyone in England can read it (check), or we will have to have a redrawing of the English libel law which has more of a think about the linked issues of (i) public interest; (ii) the right to free expression; and (iii) modern mass communication via the internet.
Now, given that everyone, even many of the lawyers, think the English libel law is outdated, idiotic, and a laughing stock, you would think that changing it would be easy. But don’t hold your breath.
-
Yes, agreed, Austin, it takes time for individuals to react in a timely fashion to change, and even longer for organisations. There are lots of examples of this in other spheres, too.
I thought readers of this thread might be interested to know that Timo Hannay has written a statement about NPG’s decision to take down the blog post.
-
Hilary Spencer alerted me to an article in the 24 May 2009 New York Times A Fight to Protect Americans From British Libel Law which outlines the general problem, though of necessity the article is inconclusive. One quote: “National differences in libel laws have always existed, but the borderless nature of the Internet has increasingly brought them into conflict.”
-
There is a Nature News story (3 June) about Simon Singh’s decision to appeal the libel ruling, here. The story briefly mentions the Nature Network take-down. The story is free to access online for three days from publication date.
-
Another link! Clare Dudman reports from the society of authors meeting to which she refers at the start of this conversation.
Results
-
