Simon Singh is a British science author and journalist. His latest book is Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. He wrote this short article for the British newspaper The Guardian, Beware the spinal trap. It included this passage:
"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."
The British Chiropractic Association sued for libel. Jack of Kent writes about BCA v Singh: An Astonishingly Illiberal Ruling. "Yesterday the English High Court made an astonishing and highly illiberal ruling in the libel case brought by the British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh."
British libel law differs depending on if the passage is a comment or a statement of fact. A comment merely has to be fair, a fact has to be justified. Immediately after oral arguments ended, Judge Eady read his prepared judgement.
"The judge ruled that, notwithstanding that the passage in Singh's article was a comment piece and published on the comment page, it was a statement of fact...But the judge continued. The word "bogus" meant deliberate and targeted dishonesty...The judge held that by the mere use of the word "bogus" Simon Singh was stating that, as a matter of fact, the BCA were being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for those children's ailments."
So now people are looking up the word "bogus" in dictionaries and trying to figure out if this judgement is extreme or not. It would be unusual for a ruling on meaning to be changed on appeal, this means Singh's options for appeal will be difficult to prove. He has 3 weeks to file an appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment