Geez... Simon Singh is quitting his column

[charlie]

His libel defense has become too arduous, too time consuming. He also has a book project on indefinite hold.

Almost a year after writing my first column for this site, I would like to welcome you to my final article.

At first I was able to deliver my monthly column on time, but my submissions have become increasingly delayed, and this is my first since November. The problem is that I have spent the past two years being sued for libel, which has taken up huge amounts of time. And now all my remaining spare time is being devoted to campaigning for libel reform.

The crippling and prohibitive financial cost of defending a libel case is often highlighted, but the equally terrible cost in terms of time and stress is rarely mentioned...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/12/simon-singh-goodbye-libel-reform

Singh notes that the NY Times and Boston Globe are actually considering pulling out of the UK altogether. Lawmakers are utterly daft to let this nonsense continue.

British libel laws claim almost universal jurisdiction, allowing plaintiffs to sue over publications that may have only a tenuous link with Britain. This in turn has encouraged libel tourism -- a lucrative business for British lawyers -- as foreigners jet to British courts seeking protection from public scrutiny.

As a consequence, the U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would make British libel judgments unenforceable in the U.S. This unusual step, invalidating British judgments, is the direct consequence of another case involving Khalid bin Mahfouz. He won a verdict against American author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who examined the flows of Saudi money to Islamist terrorists in her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It." The judge -- the same David Eady as in Mr. Singh's case -- ruled in the plaintiff's favor even though the offending book was not available for sale in U.K. book shops and only a few copies may have been sold in the U.K. on the Internet. Ms. Ehrenfeld and her publisher had decided not to publish the book in Britain for the very purpose of escaping British libel laws -- but to no avail.

Among other recent foreign cases heard in London are that of Kaupthing, an Icelandic bank, which filed a lawsuit against Ekstrabladet, a Danish newspaper for alleging that the bank had dodged taxes. Other tycoons and celebrities have helped themselves through the generosity of the British libel law system. Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky sued U.S. magazine Forbes in 2000. A Ukrainian businessman, Rinat Akhmetov, sued two Ukrainian publications in British courts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124406714025182743.html

[onager]

1. The classic case: David Irving

I don't need to elaborate...FOR ONCE! :-) This Wikipedia entry is very detailed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Revisionism

The Wiki piece doesn't mention much about one thing, though - the way American publishers/writers leaped to Irving's defense. They completely bought Irving's whining that he was being denied his freedom of speech.

The American response was almost Pavlovian, and very scary to anyone who bothered to fact-check Irving...which took about 30 seconds.

The facts: Irving was the PLAINTIFF in a British libel case. He himself brought the action against an American college professor, Deborah Lipstadt. Who was in fact defending HER freedom of speech against Irving's attempt to silence her, with a phony libel lawsuit.

The case backfired badly on Irving. Lipstadt went from anonymous academic to cause celebre, once the media figured out what was really going on and reported it honestly.

Interesting side-note - the Holocaust deniers use exactly the same tactics as evolution deniers:

"He seizes on a small, but dubious particle of 'evidence'; builds upon it, by private interpretation, a large general conclusion; and then overlooks or re-interprets the more substantial evidence and probability against it. Since this defective method is invariably used to excuse Hitler or the Nazis and to damage their opponents, we may reasonably speak of a consistent bias, unconsciously distorting the evidence". - Hugh Trevor-Roper

[charlie]

2. Ack

No, I don't remember defense from Americans. I hope they're still pleased with themselves, and the danger from libel suits they live under. Nitwits.

I just remember Hitchens, in the midst of his contrived Orwellian "disillusionment with the Left" phase, predictably taking the contrarian stance. Since he's a special case, ever keen for a fight and a chance to prove HE'S HIS OWN MAN, I didn't think anyone with serious thoughts in their head, on either side of the Atlantic, would've joined him.

[onager]

3. Thanks! For a hilarious view of Irving...

See Robert Harris' great book Selling Hitler, and the TV mini-series made from the book.

An account of the 1983 fiasco over Hitler's (fake) diaries, which had a sort of happy ending - the whole deal cost Rupert Murdoch about $2 million dollars and massive international embarassment.

Talk about "truth is stranger than fiction!!!" This foofaraw involved a Stern reporter who bought Hermann Goering's yacht; Hitler's valet and a whole crew of other ex-Nazis; Rupert Murdoch, a gaggle of eminent historians and a known/convicted forger who single-handedly cranked out 60-something volumes of Hitler diaries. And probably a partridge in a pear tree...

It's a wonder Irving didn't sue the producers. Leaving aside the Holocaust denial and general nuttiness, he is depicted as a whore who will say anything for money.

In the story, he was about to be evicted from his house and desperately needed money. So first he testified the diaries were fake, then switched sides and claimed they were real.

http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Hitler-Extraordinary-Century-Diaries/dp/0394553365

[charlie]

4. Har!

I'm constantly amazed at the amount of mischief nutcases can cause just because they've got the brass to do it! You think you can fool 10,000 historians and a million amateurs? Well, okay! I guess you deserve a shot to prove your monumental mettle! Makes me think of that other Irving -- Clifford -- who had the gold-plated chutzpah to attempt his hoax while his subject was still alive.

I ran across another happy result of the Diaries fiasco -- a loopy-looking German satire called "SCHTONK!"

"The title is a bow to Charlie Chaplin's classic The Great Dictator, in which the Fooey repeatedly uses 'Schtonk!' as an expression of disgust – the word has no meaning in German but resembles to Stunk, a colloquial expression for a scuffle or altercation."

Wikipedia - Schtonk!

[charlie]

5. He won

He fucking won (and is £200,000 out of pocket). What a relief.

It's a crying shame that there was ever the possibility it could go the other way.

A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.

...

The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion - meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence.

However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had "erred in his approach" last May, and allowed Dr Singh's appeal.

BBC News science correspondent Pallab Ghosh says that, had Justice Eady's ruling stood, it would have made it difficult for any scientist or science journalist to question claims made by companies or organisations without opening themselves up to a libel action that would be hard to win.

...

BCA president Richard Brown said: "We are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8598472.stm

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Note: he hasn't won yet

This is a ruling that, if the BCA wants to take this to trial, he will be able to use "fair comment" as his defence. The BCA can also try appealing this up to the Supreme Court; but even if they don't, or they do but lose there too, they can still go to a trial, and cause more expenditure on lawyers' fees. They'd then have to convince a judge/jury (I'm not sure which it'd be) that the comment was not 'fair'. If it was heard by Justice Eady, I could easily see him saying the comment wasn't 'fair' (presumably they'd have to prove malice). Eady really is a menace to justice. He's the most infamous judge in the UK now.

[charlie]

7. I understood that

I took this ruling to mean a sea change in the applicability of libel law, one that effectively reduces its attractiveness as a SLAPP instrument. Am I too optimistic in my assessment?

Also, does UK law provide for recoup of legal costs from a plaintiff, should a court decide a case was brought for frivolous reasons?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. An article by Singh today answers your questions

and he undoubtedly knows more about it than I do, even if he wishes he didn't:

The battle for libel reform has only begun

Yesterday's ruling on my article is welcome. But the law remains a serious hazard for journalists

...
Second, merely deciding the potential defences and meaning of my article has cost both parties a total of £200,000. Such minor legal technicalities should not be so expensive. Thankfully, it will be the chiropractors who largely meet the bill for this, but they will dispute some of my legal costs, and I could easily be left £20,000 out of pocket. And there is an associated loss of income, because I devoted most of the last two years to the case.

The total cost of a libel trial can easily run to £1m, so a journalist threatened with libel has to be prepared to risk losing everything. It might be a matter of bluff by the claimant, but any journalist who carries on with this poker game has to be either unhinged or have a healthy bank balance. Personally, I am doubly blessed because my bank balance is OK and I am slightly unhinged.
...
There are numerous other problems with English libel law – such as the fact that journalists are guilty until proven innocent, the lack of a robust statutory public interest defence, and London's reputation as a libel tourism destination
...
Our politicians must act. The Lib Dems already have libel reform in their manifesto. After Jack Straw's encouraging comments last week, it seems that libel reform will be in Labour's. And after comments by Henry Bellingham, of the shadow justice team, it would be shameful if libel reform were not in the Tories'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/simon-singh-help-me-win-libel-reform

I don't think it's a 'sea change', so much as a straw in the wind - senior judges are agreeing the current situation and verdicts aren't acceptable, and that will help political will to change the laws. There are proposals from Labour, but one change already going through parliament has been held up:

An earlier government attempt to reduce the costs of libel cases – reducing the success fees that lawyers can charge in defamation cases from 100% to 10% – has been held up in the lords by a "motion of regret" tabled by the former Commons speaker Lord Martin. The Ministry of Justice is planning to make parliamentary time available to prevent the order being killed off before the election.

Martin, the only Speaker of the Commons to be chucked out in the past few hundred years, because he was too much on the side of the dodgy MPs claiming expenses they weren't entitled to, got made a lord, and is now doing his best to ruin the country on behalf of powerful interests in the House of Lords. They never should have given him a peerage.

[charlie]

9. Ah, so while Singh's prospects are better

it does little to temper the law generally. That's terrible. The sidebar in the OP article made it sound like it signalled an effective change in the interpretation of law:

This judgement strongly endorses the view that scientific controversies should be settled by scientific debate, rather than litigation.

It will make drug companies and organisations providing therapies more cautious in bringing libel actions against those writers and academics who express strong opinion about the efficacy of their drugs and therapies.

So, Singh can be reimbursed, but it's likely he'll still be nicked for a not inconsiderable sum. That's also terrible.

Thanks for the articles and corrections, muriel_volestrangler, I appreciate it.

[charlie]

10. Singh prevails: Case dropped

Kudos to a gutsy guy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8621880.stm

[onager]

11. Thanks for the follow-up.

n/t