British Chiropractors try to silence science writer who called their claims "bogus"

Complainant-friendly British libel laws are increasingly being used to silence the critics of alternative medicine. The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has won an initial judgement against Simon Singh, a prominent science writer, after he called their fantastical claims, wholly unsupported by the scientific evidence, for chiropractic (e.g. that it can treat otitis media in children) "bogus". The court held that Singh had to show the BCA knew their claims to be false. This judgement is dangerous for free speech and the public interest, since if it is allowed to stand, it would seem to encourage anyone who makes bogus claims - but who sincerely believe themselves - to sue for libel when they are called out. The Guardian writes [1]:

The consequences of letting the libel law loose on scientific debate are horrendous. Science proceeds by peer review. A researcher's colleagues must submit his or her ideas to scrutiny without fear of the consequences. If they think they could lose their homes and savings in the libel courts, however, they will back off.

For alternative therapists are not the only ones answering their critics with lawyers. NMT, an American health giant, is suing a British doctor for questioning one of its treatments.

After the Singh ruling, the Sense About Science lobby group fears the commercial pressure to rush out new treatments will lead companies to quash doubters with writs in London courts and put public health at risk.

Watching recent libel cases has been like hearing rumours about parliamentary expenses. For years, I have wondered what it will take to turn a neglected scandal into a public outrage. After Eady ordered the censorship of a New York author's book on terrorism, which had not even been published in Britain, the US Congress began drafting a law which will guarantee that English libel judgments have no validity in America. The United Nations has condemned the judges' practice of welcoming rich libel tourists from across the world to their hospitable courts and urged Britain to allow free speech on matters of public interest.

In the Commons, MPs have railed against the absurdity of a legal system which forced a Danish newspaper to pay £100,000 for criticising the shady financial practices of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing, which duly collapsed six months later along with the rest of the Icelandic economy.

None of their despairing pleas has moved the government or persuaded the judiciary to reform itself. Maybe the Singh case will.

If he goes ahead with an appeal this week, bloggers, academics and the massed ranks of the scientific great and good are ready to join him. They have grasped what too many still fail to realise: the greatest threat to freedom of speech in Britain is not the state or the security services or the press barons, but a fusty and illiberal legal system, which has become a public menace.

Read Nick Cohen's full article [1].