Comments on: Some Good News About Libel Laws

By: Science-Based Medicine » The anti-vaccine movement strikes back against Dr. Paul Offit

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:14:02 +0000

[...] and Sense About Science has rallied public opinion in his favor and, more importantly, of reforming the U.K.’s antiquated anti-free speech libel laws — please sign the petition. However, Singh’s case is simply the most famous current example [...]

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Another Libel Suit – This Time Against Paul Offit

NeuroLogica Blog » Another Libel Suit – This Time Against Paul Offit — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:12:12 +0000

[...] reason many states have SLAPP laws (strategic lawsuit against public participation). Recently the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the need for open public discussion of important issues is a legitimate defense against a [...]

By: actiondan

actiondan — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:55:40 +0000

I’d argue that libel is now unnecessary. A rational change of the law would do away with it all together. When publishing and advertising were restricted, expensive and largely one-way communication mediums, libel served a purpose. Difficult to fight you corner when your opponent has deep pockets or the ear of a media baron. Today, due to the rise of the internet and the waning importance of TV and print media, publishing costs nothing. Comment and response are instant, and the court of public opinion has a great sense of fairness.

Orchestrated smear campaigns stick out like a sore thumb, and invariably damage only the reputaion of the instigator, unless the attack proves warranted. The Singh vs BCA case shows this principle in action. As a corporation or an individual, your reputation is everything on the internet. These days, thanks to the transparency and liquidity of information, only you have the means to destroy it.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:29:40 +0000

Go here to see what a lawyer following the matter thinks: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/12/bca-v-singh-court-of-appeal-composition.html and an update:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/12/bca-v-singh-making-legal-history.html

Jack of Kent thinks (posted elsewhere) that the BCA would be smart to cut their losses and settle on Singh’s terms. (Under English law, the BCA will be dunned for Singh’s legal expenses whenever they lose.)

By: Gareth Binks

Gareth Binks — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:44:07 +0000

The line I wrote at the end should read – Many people are scared ABOUT protecting themselves in libel cases in the UK, so don’t write or say much needed skeptical commentary about disingenuous people or organisations with a lot of money, so much praise must go to Simon.
If the law was a physical entity it would remind me of Mr Burns from the Simpsons backed up with his never ending attorneys bullying their opponents.

By: Kenan

Kenan — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:35:00 +0000

I’ll have to totally disagree with Gareth. I think every nation should be free to make it’s own laws, rather than have USA do it for them (which is basically what “international law” would mean).

Anyway, thanks to Simon for fighting the BCA. We’re all benefiting from his sacrifice.

By: Gareth Binks

Gareth Binks — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:20:47 +0000

Absolutely! Some laws should transcend borders etc, like internet crime – then some should not. It just goes to show how stupid laws in one country can be hijacked by other people!
Also whenever a libel action is brought and won, the first thing that an average UK citizen will wince and say “eeesh! I bet that will cost a fortune in legal fees”. Many people are scared into protecting themselves in libel cases in the UK so much praise must go to Simon.
Sign the petition, we CAN bring about change!