Freedom of speech or one step too far?

by Charlie Lindlar

The recent case of Simon Singh, the science writer acquitted of libelling the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), shows that freedom of speech on the internet and the British libel laws are hotly-debated topics.

After a £200,000 two-year war with the BCA, libel charges were dropped suddenly in April, to the delight of Singh and freedom of speech campaigners across the country.

Singh wrote a piece in The Guardian two years ago disputing the validity of treatments used by chiropractors that “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.”

His comments provoked outrage amongst the BCA and they issued him with a lawsuit after he alleged that “this organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”

His case attracted much media attention as it brought to light some injustices in the current libel laws, which the media themselves are constant victims of.

Significant change

In contrast with historian Robert Service’s comments on Orlando Figes’ anonymous and debatable reviews of his peers’ works, underlining that the libel laws don’t do enough to protect academics’ work and should be toughened, Singh believes that his case will signal the beginning of a change towards more lenient libel laws.

The current system sees libel cases being brought to court simply because organisations like the BCA did not like what Singh was saying.

The question that must be answered though, is whether the rights of those writing in newspapers are equal to those on the internet.

Printed words still appear to have more influence than those on a computer screen, possibly explaining the larger rate of libel cases brought to print media.

Still, that shouldn’t be enough, and both formats will keep on being affected.