Skip to main content

Should someone who wants the libel laws liberalized sue for libel?

Science blogger Ben Goldacre faces a remarkable decision of conscience at the moment. Goldacre, along with many who write about science, has expressed concern about our libel laws and the way that they have been used to suppress scientific views. Yet now, Goldacre appears to have been libelled. Should he sue, or should he rise above the libel system that has been so misused?

I won't go into the details of the alleged libel here - you can get an excellent summary from Jack of Kent's blog. Suffice it to say that a tweet that appears to have been from 'nutritionist' Gillian McKeith or her organization apparantly called Goldacre's book Bad Science lies. After a spate of negative tweets in response, the original message disappeared to be replaced by a string of posts defending McKeith's mail order 'doctorate'. Even more bizarrely, the Twitter account was then removed from McKeith's website (though left in the page code), and a post added hinting that it wasn't really Ms McKeith's Twitter account at all.

So Ben Goldacre has a strong case for taking legal action if he wanted to. But should he? He is among the vanguard (rightly) criticising our libel laws, the libel laws that resulted in the ridiculous Simon Singh case. Yet no one arguing for libel reform has suggested we should remove libel entirely from the legal system. What should Ben do?

For what it's worth, in his case I would not begin legal proceedings. His reputation has not been damaged by this. Quite the reverse - he has come out smelling of roses, while poor Ms McKeith (okay, these are crocodile tears) does not come out of the encounter well. If she's smelling of anything, it's the bodily product she is most associated with. I think Goldacre can afford to be magnanimous. I don't even think he should press for a retraction, appealing though an endorsement of Goldacre by McKeith would be. Provided this affair has mass media coverage (at the moment, Goldacre's paper The Guardian seems to be the only one to have covered it) then I would be entirely satisfied that honour has been satisfied in the traditional manner of shooting yourself in the foot.

Image from www.badscience.net
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox20 July 2010 at 11:09

    The best thing to do in these situations is nothing. In the end, the only people who really benefit from legal actions are the lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg21 July 2010 at 09:02

    I'm sure you are right, Henry. It's entertaining, though.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more