Re: British libel law strikes again

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: May 9, 2009 12:52:16 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   British libel law strikes again

Alas, words are inherently sloppy and subject to interpretation by the  
reader. There’s the classic question “have you stopped beating your  
wife”. Do you answer it using language precisely and say “no”?

I did find http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/careful-how-you-use-bogus.html 
 which provided the original:
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to  
treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite  
wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything.  
And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their  
station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their  
members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding  
problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even  
though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the  
respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily  
promotes bogus treatments.

Also http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-first-court-hearing-is.html 
 and others. I haven’t read all the posts but the ones I did read  
found the decision disturbing.

From my own reading (IANAL, and moreover IANA[British]L) it seems  
that bogus in this case parallels “not a jot of evidence” which  
doesn’t seem sloppy at all.

We have the US equivalent with the California decision against a  
history teacher who called creationism superstition. When do we go  
from protecting religious freedom to protecting belief?

Of course these issues cut both ways which is why we have lawyers to  
make the decision but is the legal system the appropriate venue? In my  
view it’s often pre-science in favoring evidence over the testing of  
ideas. Do I have to worry about suits from lawyers in making such  
statements?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:34
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: British libel law strikes again



Begin forwarded message:

From: Scott Brim <swb () employees org>
Date: May 9, 2009 9:56:32 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] British libel law strikes again

It seems to me that a "comment" is an expression of an opinion, while
a "statement of fact" is an assertion that something is objectively
true.  Mr Singh's statement, "This organisation is the respectable
face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus
treatments", is clearly phrased as a statement of fact.

This has nothing to do with the efficacy of chiropractic -- if he
makes a assertion of fact he must justify it.

> From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net>
> If it stands, the ruling is bad enough for Singh, who will have to
> pay the BCA's costs. But it will have an even more terrible effect
> on critiquing anything to do with pseudoscience or alt-med: talk
> about  chilling effects.

Not at all -- it will have a chilling effect on sloppy use of words,
and require all sides to use them responsibly, and to avoid
emotion-laden rhetoric.  Those who want to deny any claim to
usefulness for such things as chiropractic should by all means
continue their challenges but do so constructively ... regardless of
how the other side behaves.

Scott




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com