Too right - a great many congratulations to Simon, and to the thousands of people that now support the Campaign for Libel Reform.
Simon's case may well be over, but he will still face an uphill battle to recover all his costs, estimated to have reached £200,000 to date.
And despite this welcome victory, there remains a pressing need to reform English and Welsh Libel law - all three major political parties are now committed to reforming the law, and in the run-up to the election we must continue to press for new legislation that prevents cases like Simon's don't happen again.
For now it is right that we celebrate Simon's victory as it represents a watershed in the defence of open debate and free speech - to say nothing of the impact this case and the publicity it has generated will have on the protection of fair comment and scientific discourse.
More later possibly!
UPDATE:
thanks to commenter John Collins (below), who alerted me to the BCA's statement on the issue - you can read the statement here.
UPDATE (II)
Sense about Science have now put up a detailed statement from Simon, SaS's Tracey Brown and Simon's solicitor Robert Dougans. Please do read the whole thing as it goes a long way to demonstrating just how vital wholesale libel reform is despite the case against Simon being dropped - here are a couple of highlights though... Simon said,
English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.
He went on to argue that reform is required to protect the likes of Dr. Peter Wilmshurst, who is being sued for raising safety concerns regarding a new medical device:
If Dr Wilmshurst loses his case then he will be bankrupted. It is ridiculous that a respected researcher such as Dr Wilmshurst, someone who has devoted his life to medicine, should be put under such pressure just for speaking his mind.
Robert Dougans said:
All that now remains to be settled is how much of Simon’s legal costs he can recover from the BCA, and how much he will have to bear himself. However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about 20,000 pounds. This - and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover - is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Agency has ruled can no longer be made.
As has often been said, a victory of this sort comes at a price, a price that the Campaign for Libel Reform is adamant must not be paid in the future for the simple act of discussing matters of essential public interest.
The Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve MP has committed his party to reforming English and Welsh libel laws, confirming that their forthcoming manifesto will include
a fundamental review of the libel laws with a view to enacting legislation to reform them. This reform could best be done by means of a separate Libel Bill and this is the preferred approach for us
The Conservatives now join both the Liberal Democrats and Labour in promising to reform the widely criticised libel laws, demonstrating the far-reaching influence of the much-publicised Campaign for Libel Reform - according to the Campaign, 48,000 supporters have signed an online petition urging statutory reform, and have persuaded the majority of eligible MPs to sign a Parliamentary Early Day Motion calling for fairness to be put at the heart of libel legislation. The national campaign is believed to be the first campaign by an NGO this year to get a manifesto commitment from all three major parties.
It is worth dwelling on that last point - I plan to write a longer piece on the successes of the Campaign and the wider lessons to be drawn from it, but that will have to wait; mainly because, despite a significant victory for libel defendant Simon Singh at the Court of Appeal, and even though there is now cross-party consensus on the need for reform, the nature of said reform is still in the balance and it will likely require continued pressure on Parliamentarians for all 10 of the Campaign's recommendations to be implemented. We've already see one cross-party body taking on board a large proportion of the Campaign's findings, but how many of these proposals will be translated into exact details in each party election manifesto remains to be seen - a critic might point out that, honourable exceptions aside, the Tory party has been the most reluctant to get behind libel reform, and that today's announcement of 'a review' is not the strongest endorsement - nonetheless, Conservative support for the cause is indeed welcome.
The lesson, then, must be that whilst cross-party support for the principles of libel reform are welcome advances in the right direction, the Campaign will continue to press the government until reform is realised, until our freedom to debate is enshrined in a balanced law.
As widelyreported, Simon Singh has won his appeal against the pre-trail judgement on meaning in his defence against a libel suit brought by the British Chiropractic Association.
three of the most senior judges in the land dismissed the way in which the BCA reverted to libel action instead of accepting The Guardian's 'right to reply' offer, and rejected the submissions of the BCA case that the phrases
not a jot of evidence
and
happily promotes bogus treatments
represented libellous comment. Indeed, the Judges went further to say that
[plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views...
In a significant boost to the defence of scientific discourse, the judgement continued:
Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.
Let's take stock at this point, however. Simon's won his appeal on meaning, but the matter is far from over; according to the BCA's statement put out in response to the verdict,
we are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial.
Now, it is up to the reader to decide whether they feel that, considering the BCA's statement concluded with the thought that
the BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity,
whether or not they have succeeded in this aim and would be wise to continue to trial in light of today's judgement. What is clear, nonetheless, is that whatever the outcome in Simon's own case, this judgement does two things. Firstly, it provides a precedent in case law to allow future victims of libel chill to bring a serious public interest defence - as Simon's solicitor Robert Dougans said,
Scientists have been – rightly – concerned about the consequences they might face if opponents seek to counter their arguments with a libel claim rather than by engaging in debate and research. The Court of Appeal’s brave decision today gives hope that important research on scientific matters will be protected against libel threats, and will hopefully make people think again before embarking on legal action hoping to shut down debate. It is clear from the judgment that the Court of Appeal is not satisfied with the current state of English libel laws, and recognises the absurdities and injustices that can result from them as they currently stand.
The second thing it does it highlight the pressing need for statutory reform - for Parliament to re-write English libel law to reflect the urgent need to protect freedom of speech from libel suits that threaten to quash responsible journalism and scientific debate. The Campaign for Libel Reform does not end here, even if today's judgement is seen as a turning point in Simon's case - as he himself says,
It is ridiculous that it has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a handful of words... I am still angry that libel is so horrendously expensive... There are hundreds more cases that never make it to court because people back down and apologise, and thousands more where writers, journalists and bloggers self-censor to avoid the chilling effect of libel law.
So in many ways today marks a significant moment not only in Simon's defence of his critical take on chiropractic, but a milestone in the battle to defend free speech - the Conservative MP David Davies, present at today's hearing, hoped that today would write a new chapter in the history of free speech. Here's hoping that his party will follow the Liberal Democrats in adding libel law reform to their manifesto, so that writers such as Simon no longer have to fear the iniquitous libel laws and can be free to discuss, debate, criticise and investigate the issues of scientific and political import that form our zeitgeist.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw is to address the Mass Lobby of Parliament organised by The Libel Reform Campaign led by English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science that is to be held later today (March 23rd). At the lobby, he will announce an historic commitment to reform England’s archaic libel laws, after a national campaign that has galvanised 43,000 supporters and persuaded 260 MPs to sign a Parliamentary Early Day Motion and its rider. The campaign has already secured the backing of the Liberal Democrats, resulting from Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, Nick Cohen, Sile Lane and Dr. Evan Harris MP joining Prof. Richard Dawkins in presenting the case for libel reform at last year's annual conference. More recently, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee backed the cause by endorsing many of the libel reform campaign's demands in a report into Press Standards, Privacy and Libel.
Reacting to the news that Jack Straw will committ the Labour Party to reforming the iniquitous libel legislation, John Kampfner, the CEO of Index on Censorship said,
The Labour Party will show a commitment to actual reform to enhance civil liberties in this country. With two of the three major political parties now committed to reform, we ask David Cameron to back our campaign.
Tracey Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science said:
It would be ludicrous for any party to suggest we should continue with these unfair and ridiculed libel laws. We need freedom of speech that we can exercise confidently, to discuss science and medicine or any other subject of public interest. Not semi-feudal laws that tie people up in court for two years and chill public discussion.
Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN said,
Over 40,000 people have signed the libel reform petition. The level of popular support for reform shows that this law is not just about journalists but human rights activists, scientists and academics, even mothers chatting online: free expression really is an issue for everyone.
Such a positive endorsement of the need for reform must be welcomed, and it now falls on the Campaign for Libel Reform and the thousands of people who have supported it to maintain the momentum gathered thus far, to ensure that this committment is translated into concrete and workable legislative reform. Let's hope that today sees the turning point in the battle to protect responsible journalism and scientific discourse from the chilling effects of English libel law.
The Campaign has raised awareness of the urgent need to reform English libel law by engaging with the public and with lawmakers in arguably one of the most successful civic campaigns in recent years; through their petition (still open for you to sign if you haven't already joined the thousands who have already done so); through many supportive articles in the mainstream media written by those directly affected by the chilling effect of libel legislation and those who support the maintainance of free speech; and most recently through an outstanding night of comedy at London's Palace Theatre that saw the likes of Dara O'Brian and Robin Ince wow the crowd.
So if you can make it to Parliament on Tuesday, please write to your MP by visiting theyworkforyou, and asking you MP to meet you between 3pm and 4pm in Central Lobby. At 2pm there will be a meeting where leading campaingers will share their experience and prepare for the Mass Lobby.
Please try and come along if you're able to do so, we really do need to make a strong statement to to MPs from all parties - that we urgently need to reform our libel laws, in the interest of free debate - and we have one last chance to make our voices heard this side of the election.
In order for libel law to be reformed, however, lawmakers need to be brought into the fold, committing themselves to an overhaul of the current legislation; last week in Bournemouth the Liberal Democrats made just such a commitment, accepting proposals to reform libel law to safeguard free expression and debtate - here's how.
As I blogged about over on libdemvoice, I organised a fringe event relating to this urgent issue - you can watch the video below - apologies for the necessarily amateur quality, I am after all an amateur!! (I also have an audio file if you're interested, blogger/blogspot software doesn't seem to like it though so I can't upload it...)
Sile Lane from senseaboutscience opened the meeting and invited Simon and Ben to share their experiences of being sued for libel, which they did with clarity and honesty - it can't be easy for either to speak of their battles, which in Ben's case ended successfully but which continue for Simon, costing him time and money - £100k so far, with the prospect of more bills to come and with the knowledge that libel defendants hardly ever recoup all their costs even when they win. Simon spoke of how his investigation into chiropractic, as part of his book on alternative medicine, came to symbolise not only how a lack of evidence is no barrier to the extravagant claims made by alternative therapists, but how those with so much at stake react to criticism not by debating, nor by counter-arguments, but by resorting to suing for libel, leaving the dissenter in question with a stark choice - retract the criticism (no matter how valid), or fight on through years of legal wranglings.
This adverse reaction to criticism, this defensive attempt to silence critics using libel law,is completely antithetical to the core prinicples of scientific enquiry - as Ben told the delegates, not only does science approve of critical thought, it positively thrives on it, with eminent Professors often cut down to size by PhD students at academic meetings. Resorting to libel action, knowing that the very act of issuing a writ can silence even the most convincing and measured criticism, is nothing short of cowardly - as a Professor being sued by chiropractors in a separate case famously said, "let's hear your evidence, not your legal muscle."
Of course it's not only the high-profile cases that make it to court that demosntrate just how effective our current libel laws are at silencing debate - hundreds of articles appear in lifestyle magazines and Sunday Supplements advocating a plethora of unproven and baseless treatments for all sorts of conditions, but articles critical of such practices often don't even make it into the public realm for fear of triggering legal action; hence Ben's remark that the libel laws of this country are now 'a danger to public health,' as they leave the public with an impression that many such treatments are legitimate and effective when in fact they are often no better than placebo (at best) and sometimes downright damaging (at worst).
Of course the libel laws aren't just used to suppress scientific debate, as political journalist Nick Cohen explained. This phenomenon of 'libel tourism' makes London a plaintiff's paradise, the libel capital of the world where men (and it's usually men) of dubious repute sue anyone that dares criticise them in public, knowing that arrangements such as no win, no fee and the presumption of defamation will more often than not see them win. Nick spoke of countless cases, some well-publicised and others not, which are shameful examples of how the freedom of expression is sacrificed to the vested interests of the monied and the powerful; he also put forward an interesting theory that the bias towards the plaintiff is a relic of Britain's colonial and feudal past, where it was deemed heretic to criticise those high up in society and the law therefore assumed that comments claimed to be defamatory were in fact so, ipso facto. He contrasted this to the libel law of the USA, a nation founded on the principle of free expression, where the complainant has to "prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly." Infinitely fairer than the law we currently have in England and Wales.
And it was on this point of exactly how the law can be reformed that we heard from Evan Harris MP, who spoke about the need for legislation to reflect the centrality of free debate not only to science and medicine but to all spheres.
Going beyond the conference fringe, Evan and I put together an amendment to a civil liberties policy motion debated at conference, which was proposed by none other than Professor Richard Dawkins. Prof. Dawkins was given special leave to address conference despite not being a party member (he just happens to live in Evan Harris' constituency and votes Lib Dem at every election), and he eloquently proposed the amendment which endorsed the reform of libel law to
ensure that a better balance is provided between free speech, responsible journalism, scientific discourse and the public interest on the one hand and powerful corporations, wealthy individuals and vested interests on the other.
Prof. Dawkins (in a speech you can watch here or read a version of here) brought Simon and Ben's cases to the attention of conference, emphasising how unfair the current libel laws are and how, in science and medicine in particular, open debate is not just a matter of principle - open discussion of ideas and criticism of accepted practices are not just tolerated, they're absolutely central to how progress is made. In a rousing speech, Prof. Dawkins urged conference to amend the motion on civil liberties with a commitment to reform libel law, particularly as
if Singh loses, it would have major implications on the freedom of scientists, researchers and other commentators to engage in robust criticism of scientific, and pseudoscientific, work.
Carried by a unanimous vote, the amendment was given also strong support by Lib Dem shadow justice minister David Howarth, whose legal team is now looking into specific areas of libel law that need reforming and at potential ways in which the best aspects of libel law in other countries can be applied here.
This policy amendment has attracted quite some support in all quarters of the media (all the more so for Prof. Dawkins' support no doubt, for which Evan Harris is to be thanked!), both old (institutions as far apart on the political specturm as The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and the BBC carried the story) and new (the quackometer blog and politics.co.uk amongst others). Somewhat unsurprising perhaps given that journalists themselves are often victim of the chilling effect of legal action, actual or threatened - nonetheless the campaign for reform gathers momentum, and those who are interested in how Simon's case in particular and the battle to reform the libel laws proceeds should look out for developments at Jack of Kent's excellent blog, at senseaboutscience.org, or of course here.
I'll finish with something of a response to Ben Goldacre's excellent write-up of the fringe event he spoke at, which you can find over at The Guardian's Comment is Free blog. Ben, I know that for some folk politics inspires nothing but skepticism, and I know that this is often rightly so. I know also that no matter what stance the Liberal Democrats may take on an issue, we (and I say this as a member but in a personal capacity...) are unlikely to form a majority government just yet so our policy positions may not immediately translate into a change in the law. (And I know you were on a rail replacement bus when you submitted the story, which no doubt explains in part the tone of what you wrote!). But Ben, one thing's for certain - the stance you've taken against the unfair, unjust and illiberal libel laws of England and Wales, the stance that supports Simon in his quest for justice and that you rightly believe is of paramount importance from the public health perspective - this stance will only lead to a change in the law with the support of the public at large and more importantly of Parliamentarians. The more of the latter we recruit to the cause the greater the publicity we generate amongst the former, and the greater the momentum for change to occur - so hang on in there Ben, because whether or not the law actually changes, we musn't rest until we've campaigned our hearts out as it's quite simply the right thing to do.
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that ‘99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae’. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body. In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra. You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence. I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions. But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic. In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors. More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures. Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection. Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: ‘Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.’ This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
What this does show, to me, is that no amount of legal pressure, lawsuits, bullying, no amount of scare-tactics can supress reasoned debate, not in the age of teh internets. The allegedly defamatory character of this article has had to be gutted out to avoid the bloggers I've listed above themselves being left vulnerable to being sued, but I think the thrust of the article remains - and the criticism of chiropractic remains legitimate and based in sound evidence, which no amount of legal chill can change.
I like Simon Singh. Not in a I-stalk-him-and-his-wife-Anita-Anand-off-Radio-5-wherever-they-go kind of way (honest, guv...). No, I like his brilliantly insightful books, his quirky yet informative style of presenting the most complex principle in physics so that even an ignoramus like me can grasp them, and his more recent contribution to the sceptical literature that includes the fabulous Trick or Treatment, co-written with Prof. Edzard Ernst.
I do not like the really rather shameful treatment (no pun intended) that Singh has been subjected to by the British Association of Chiropractors (BCA) in response to an article he penned in The Guardian last year. It isn't for me to re-cap the whole story here - for more on the background visit Jack of Kent's extraordinary blog - but suffice to say that the BCA took offence at Singh's criticism of their profession, and in particular his contention that their claims for efficacy in cases for all sorts of diseases are in fact bogus (the original article has long since disappeared but Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog has excerpts here...). They sued, and as is now being widely reported, Mr. Justice Eady ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Singh would have to defend his use of the word 'bogus' as in Eady's judgement this imputed fraudulent malice to practitioners of chiropractic.
Singh is not the first to be threatened with legal action for expressing a scientifically valid opinion backed up by peer-reviewed evidence - the likes of the Quackometer, Ben Goldacre and many many others have suffered the chill from various sources. But what sets this case apart is that it's ended up in court, with astronomical (again, no pun intended) costs incurred already, and more in prospect. Moreover, the potential implication of Judge Eady's ruling extends to virtually all critical commentary on scientific issues.
The consequences of letting the libel law loose on scientific debate are horrendous.
If bloggers, journalists and writers fear the wrath of a scandalously bad libel law every time they dispute scientific findings, if critical thought is to be silenced without any deference to scientific fact (which in this case is squarely behind Singh, hence the furore), then what price debate and enquiry?
And so to yesterday's news that Simon is to appeal against Justice Eady's ruling after all, which comes to this blogger via The Quackometer, Professor Colquhon's DCScience and Dr* T of thinking is dangerous. A brave decision, one that may cost Simon considerable personal effort and of course more funds, and yet the right decision. Not only because it shows that in the face of bullying and legal chill, scientific debate and free speech as a whole must be defended to the bitter end; not only because the right to question practices that have potentially grave consequences for public health is an essential prerogative of a free and independent press. As well as these reasons, Simon's decision to appeal is right because he has the support of hundreds of academics, journalists, lawyers and others who believe in the right to criticise that which is in the public domain and falsifiable, who believe that scientific criticism should not be answered with a bullying use of libel law but with considered debate surrounding the evidence, and who are prepared to lend their weight to a campain not only to support Simon in his commendable fight but to reform the libel laws of this country such that they become fit for purpose.
badscienceblogs is an aggregation of the best writing about science and its abuses, distortions, absurdities and corruption. Also, its humour and colourful characters. We write about how science is portrayed in the media, how it is used and abused by commercial interests and how it is hijacked and impersonated by fraudsters and the deluded.
