UK To Give Peer-Reviewed Science Libel Protection 101
scibri writes "England is finally getting around to updating its notoriously plaintiff-friendly libel laws, which have been extensively criticized for stifling scientific debate in the past few years, such as in the case of Simon Singh. The government introduced a defamation bill last week that would extend explicit protection to statements in scientific or academic journals — providing the work was properly peer reviewed. The protection would also extend to reports of academic and scientific conferences. The proposed legislation is popular among the UK's researchers and journalists, but a similar law on whistleblower protection has had mixed reviews in the U.S."
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: home of the false dilemma.
And the nigger joke. And the pasty obese white guys who mod them down as fast as they can to prove how cool and not-racist they are.
Even though niggers don't browse this site.
Of course they do. You're here.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
What about truth being imune?
You know, a paper that reports the results of a study, without jumping to conclusions, expressing unrelated opinions, or stating facts that aren't suported by the study being imune. While a paper that does those things being subject to libel acusations.
Re: (Score:1)
Truth does not offer immunity to libel in the UK.
The new bill contains truth as a defence too (Score:5, Informative)
Truth plus (Score:2)
The truth is an automatic defense against libel.
Not in all times and in all jurisdictions! Though I understand that current UK law 'justification' (truth) is already a complete defence without any additional requirement such as 'public interest;' and that s2 of the present Bill is merely reformulating (and renaming) rather than introducing a truth only defence. But them INAUKL, but an Australian one.
Until 2006 in a number of states in Australia, the older situation persisted, namely truth alone was not a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really am curious as to how preventing people from being sued for telling the truth is a terrible mistake?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep truth as an absolute defence for libel trials.
Charge the media in your example with attempting to pervert the course of justice, not libel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is an automatic defense against libel.
Not in all times and in all jurisdictions! Though I understand that current UK law 'justification' (truth) is already a complete defence without any additional requirement such as 'public interest;' and that s2 of the present Bill is merely reformulating (and renaming) rather than introducing a truth only defence. But them INAUKL, but an Australian one.
IAUI, there's at least one exception: the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why a puppy-huffing kiddy-fiddler like you would think that.
Re: (Score:1)
In Europe, truth is not an automatic defense. You can't talk about certain things, even if true.
In France some years back, back when "family values" were all the rage among politicians, two guys were running for the same office. One was cheating...with the other guy's wife. So the other guy brought it up as a campaign issue.
It was illegal to drag someone's dirty laundry out, even of a public politician, and even if true. So it went to court, and in this case, the court ruled it Ok because the cheater wa
Re: (Score:2)
One, you don't have immunity to, you have immunity from.
Two, the legal term would be "defence against".
Three, it actually is a defence against any form of defamation, since by definition a defamatory statement is untrue (though it's necessary to prove the truth of the statement).
Four, there's no such thing as "UK law"; Scotland has a different system to England and Wales.
Stop spreading this shit. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Re:So you'd prefer (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to take issue with much of what you wrote, but ...
by definition a defamatory statement is untrue
No, by definition a defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of a natural person. Justification is a defence.
Four, there's no such thing as "UK law"; Scotland has a different system to England and Wales.
Genuine question: Can you explain the difference between the various categories of primary legislation, such as UK Public General Acts, under which classification both the 1952 and 1966 Defamation Acts are found; UK Local Acts; Acts of the Scottish Parliament; Acts of the English Parliament; Acts of the Old Irish Parliament; &c.? Non-UK/English/Scottish/Welsh lawyers could be forgiven for some confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
You're using the common definition, not the legal one.
"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person." [google.com]
If it merely meant "saying bad things" it would also include mere insults and vulgar abuse, which are not legally defamatory.
As to why Scotland has a separate system, your guess is as good as mine. M
Re: (Score:2)
I know f all about UK vs British vs Scottish law so I could be wrong, but according to the obligatory wikipedia reference [wikipedia.org] Scotland only got their Parliament in 1999. Surely both aforementioned acts would be part of the Scottish law, at least until Scotland decides to repeal them?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. Scotland has always had a separate legal system, largely due to being an independent country until 1603. Neither legal system was imposed on the other nation at the time, and they've mostly remained separate since.
Since the Scottish legal system is built on different principles to the English one, not all English Acts of Parliament apply to Scotland, although some do. Needless to say, it's complicated.
In terms of libel, England and Scotland are very different, to the extent that libel isn't even a speci
Re: (Score:2)
It was still an independant country after 1603. Jamie Sext (James VI being his Sunday name, or James I if you're English) inherited the throne of both countries in 1603 (known as the Union of Crowns) but each still had a seperate government. It was the Act of Union in 1707 in which the Scottish government was disolved and the nation was offically incorporated into the United Kingdom.
Despite that, many systems, law being one, just trundled on the same as they always had been and remained different from the r
Re:So you'd prefer (Score:5, Informative)
You're using the common definition, not the legal one.
Very funny, you tell a lawyer (albeit a non-practitioner) he is using the common defn and not the legal one and then you quote from an online dictionary. Now it may be the legal defn in the US, I would not want to venture an opinion.
How do you explain that at common law truth was an irrelevance in criminal libel? Moreover in my jurisdiction, NSW, until 2006, truth by itself was no defence to defamation. More to the point, the UK [sic] 1952 Act and the proposed Bill, are explicit about justification and truth respectively being defences.
The distinction between a tort (and also a crime) and a defence may seem like a fine one, but it relates to the mistake the "puppy-huffing kiddy-fiddler" made in observing that "all statements are presumed false."
My understanding is this: The onus of proof lies upon a plaintiff to make out that the elements of defamation, namely that the defendant published defamatory imputations. While the courts (and we here rely on British as well as Australian precedent) have come up with a number of tests, perhaps the most accepted is that the imputation would lower the estimation of plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable member of the community, or some similar formulation.
It is open to the defendant to raise a defence. Because they are the party raising it the affirmanti principle applies, i.e. the onus of proof is on the defendant to establish the substantial truth of the statements. Hence it appears to the legally naive that statements are presumed false. As an analytical type you will perceive the difficulty inherent in the notion of a "defence of justification/truth" existing and the necessity of a plaintiff to establish untruth as an element of defamation, no?
The current Bill makes this situation clear:
2 Truth
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained is substantially true.
My emphasis
If it merely meant "saying bad things" it would also include mere insults and vulgar abuse, which are not legally defamatory
I never said it meant "saying bad things". Simply put it means injuring the reputation of a natural person. Should you care for a real dictionary defn, (as opposed to my simplified legal one), the OED has "the action of defaming, or attacking any one's good name." If insults and vulgar abuse sufficiently damages an individual's reputation then they are defamatory of course.
As to why Scotland has a separate system, your guess is as good as mine.
That was not my question. My question was what distinguishes a UK General Public Act from either an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act of the English Parliament?
Re:Peer review? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, it's the opponents of science that are guilty of groupthink. Have you ever read a peer-reviewed publication? The kinds of debate that you'll see around peer-reviewed articles makes political debates look like playground banter by comparison. Nothing gets reviewed with more scrutiny and no-holds barred snark than scientific studies.
Take the time to read a few journals, and to follow the debates between academics. Pick a subject, and follow it through the process. If you're honest with yourself, you'll have to come to the conclusion that it's scientists who put their ideas to the test, and it's people like yourself who use buzzwords like "groupthink" who cling to received ideas without a semblance of critical thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Now why would he want to do something like that, when its much better for his ego to buy into a big vast conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when its much better for his ego to buy into a big vast conspiracy theory.
in order to defend this:
If anything, it's the opponents of science that are guilty of groupthink.
You do realize that it is those who think that scientific skepticism amounts to "opposing science" are the ones seeing conspiracy theories and not the other way around, do you not? Skepticism is part of the scientific method. This law would effectively forbid continued inquiry after any claim of consensus can be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of a non sequitur there. A person can oppose science based entirely on their own beliefs. A conspiracy involves several people working together on a secret plan. The two things are completely unconnected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Groupthink" [wikipedia.org] isn't a buzzword. It's an actual term used in sociology, political sciences, and psychology. And /. is full of people who live and thrive on it. Look at a global warming thread, a thread on 'nix or MS, Sun or Oracle. Don't be ignorant of what groupthink really is, science in general is chalk full of it. Everyone has seen it, especially the guy who gets shafted because his 'views' aren't with the mainstream.
Re: (Score:2)
"Groupthink" [wikipedia.org] isn't a buzzword.
That's just the current Groupthink. I the individual think it is. ~
Chock full, not chalk full (Score:2)
However, your examples confute your last clause, " the guy who gets shafted because his 'views' aren't with the mainstream". Looking at Great Scientific Disasters, it is usually the non-mainstream guy who gets promoted by the media and then real science takes a long time to be recognised. There is no shortage of journalists trying to raise their profile (and income from right-wing newspaper owners) by AGW denial. In the UK, Lovelock, Wakefield and Laithwaite are
Re: (Score:2)
You might want try moving outside of the United states, and try other parts of the world. We use other versions of spelling, once you realize that...you'll be less ignorant of the world around you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Peer review? (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that the law is going to recognise that making a reasonable statement based on proper scientific data is demonstrably true, and as such cannot be libel.
The better view is that it makes "scientific or academic journal[s]" (one presumes bona fide journals, though the Bill doesn't make it clear how that might be assessed.) a privileged forum, much as courts and parliament already are.
The internationally recognised process of peer review will be considered the arbiter of "proper scientific data" (my phrase). It leaves the door open for cases involving poorly collected data
By s7(5), a "fair and accurate copy of, extract from or summary" of the article is also privileged (again as is currently the case for court and parliamentary reporting).
The problem, which you point to is that it somewhat misconstrues the role of peer review to understand it as a guarantee of finality (ie. the truth of the publication). Rather peer review is a threshold, a seat at the table of the expert debate. We, the ordinary "(wo)men in the street," need to put some time between publication and acceptance of the conclusions in order to allow the expert community to render their judgement.
Re: (Score:3)
"Main institution"? There are more than one scientific and academic journal.
A journal certainly isn't the arbiter of what is libel, a court does that.
This bit of the law only adds a defence to libel for scientific and academic publication that meets certain standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Madness! (Score:2)
So, the main institution responsible for scientific groupthink is going to be the arbiter of what's libel and what isn't? Brilliant!
So, you're saying that scientists will be responsible for determining what science is? Madness! Next, they'll have doctors telling us what medicine is! And mathematicians telling us what math is!
Yes! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you couldn't have Nickelback without nickel, and that's all the proof I need.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you couldn't have Nickelback without nickel, and that's all the proof I need.
I consider it a good day when I get to the end of it without hearing anything by or about Nickelback. So much for today.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against an American Football defense strategy?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against an American Football defense strategy?
I heard they did (?) the Superbowl halftime show (with Madonna?!?), but since I didn't watch it, I don't know what you're saying. Now, bringing all that back into mind makes me want to go wash out my mouth with soap, or my keyboard. Were there any wardrobe malfunctions to speak of this year, and have the Xtians recovered from that traumatic event yet?
You know, about the worst things that happen in baseball these days is Rosanne Barr butchering the national anthem for !@#$s and giggles. NFL just makes me
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a football fan really but there are a few things you may not want to know. I will tell you anyhow, it is for your own good.
hmm... my phone stopped doing caps in here... oh well, bear with me.
the players are among the greatest physically empowered people on the planet. they can sprint, jump, lift, and more on nearly the same level as olympiads.
most actually have degrees and actually had to not only pass those courses but had to do so while maintaining their physical training.
the game is actually pre
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a beautiful post. I'm honoured. I'm also mostly a fan of National League baseball and World Series baseball and Italian Serie A football fan.
I don't know if your wife left you for a football player ...
fsck, that was funny. :-)
No, really, I know North American football, watched NFL on TV every Sunday afternoon and Monday night and went to CFL games in town. I didn't intend to insult any players with what I wrote prior to this. I was talking about fans. I've a lot of respect for the players. They're no dummies.
However, "perhaps it is that it is too co
Great step forward! (Score:2)
There will probably be some wrinkles that will need to be ironed out down the road, but at least it should prevent things like the silliness that enveloped the whole chiropractor incident from a few years ago. Hopefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Dr Bob, DC got found out. We could use him right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he was one of the best trolls / alts / whatever the fuck he was doing of all time. I saw that thread -- he had some sticky cookie, posted as his real UID, called it a good run, and that was it.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't mean they were smiling, rather that they were willing to do so. And the evidence was right there, on their website. Until they realized their claims in fact couldn't be justified and took them down.
so, until the paper is peer-reviewed... (Score:1)
So, until the paper is peer-reviewed, it's still vulnerable to libel.
Next, a libel watchdog looks for search terms and reports papers recently submitted that are still open to sue.
Sue early, sue often!
Re: (Score:2)
So, until the paper is peer-reviewed, it's still vulnerable to libel.
Except that journals will not publish a paper until it is peer-reviewed and, until something is published, there is no libel. Of course this does mean that if you submit a version to a preprint server you might be in trouble. Fortunately I'm a particle physicist and I doubt Higgs bosons will sue us for "making it look fat" if we measure a mass that's on the high side.
Re: (Score:2)
Publish:
1. (of an author or company) Prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, or other work) for public sale.
2. Print (something) in a book or journal to make it generally known.
So yeah, it looks like sending it in is fine.
Good Plan, but.. (Score:1)
They're going to need to be very careful on the implementation. Define "properly" peer-reviewed. Is the journal liable for libel (now there's a terrible turn of phrase) if it turns out the peer review wasn't "proper"? Can someone challenge the propriety of the peer review in court?
Don't get me wrong; sounds like a step in the right direction. I'd just hate to see it abused to discourage scientific publishing in England.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In the name of science, will it be confirmed that African Americans have a lower IQ due to their genetics?
There are some highly intelligent black people. I have met more than a few and I treated them with the respect they deserve. But as a group, yes they do have a lower IQ than whites or Asians as a group. This is not politically correct so excuses must be made so no one's precious feelings get hurt. The popular excuse is that cultural differences explain their poorer IQ test performance. I think that's both very funny and a little insulting considering that they have been born and raised in the US for hu
UK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a bad move... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mere fact that it's a law that gives protection only to specific classes of people...
What class of people would that be? There are no restrictions on who can submit a paper to a journal - it just has to be good enough to pass peer review.
Not just science: truth (Score:2)
...but still just a bandaid on some pretty serious issues with censorship.
The scientific paper exclusion is just one aspect of the bill. It also introduces truth as a defence. So, as long as you are telling the truth, there will be no censorship from libel.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already there. The word used is "justification", but that's what it means.
Don't believe everything you read on slashdot, especially about legal matters. Very few of the people posting here are qualified in law, and of those a tiny fraction could even point to the country in question on a map.
Re: (Score:2)
the road to serfdom... (Score:1)
This is going further down the road to serfdom, "scientifically".
Re:Two tiered system (Score:4, Insightful)
I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.
Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.
I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law [parliament.uk] doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.
The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.
So now what? (Score:2)
We have the same unfair and unjust libel laws as the US, where the plaintiff has no protection against a defendant with deep enough pockets?
Re: (Score:3)
We have the same unfair and unjust libel laws as the US, where the plaintiff has no protection against a defendant with deep enough pockets?
No you don't. The UK libel laws are significantly worse in many ways. They're much more broad, and can be applied to people more or less anywhere in the world. Read up on some of the points raised during the Simon Singh case for more details.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a peer-reviewed fact?
You don't think he should have won?
Abolish defamation and slander (Score:2)
Defamation and slander laws choke the free flow of true information. Nowadays everyone can have a blog, and any libelous info can be quickly confirmed or denied by the checking out the website of the alleged miscreant.
Great (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
so... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's saying that from a *legal* POV the statements are exempt[1], not that from a *scientific* one they're true.
[1] like statements made by MPs within the House of Commons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's your problem.