Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Singh gets leave to appeal
Singh says “We have only won leave to appeal. Now we must convince the court of appeal on the issue of meaning. There is a long battle ahead. Reform of English libel laws, particularly the right to a public interest defence and a fairer costs structure, are vital.”
IMO: This seems quite correct. The actual interests seem to include the fact that Singh, as a journalist, needs to ply his trade and that the 'alternative medicine' people also want to ply theirs. Lord Justice Laws had very reasonably said Eady had risked swinging the balance of rights too far in favour of the right to reputation and against the right to free expression. Lay persons have to concede that Singh made reasonable comments bearing in mind the apparent lack of any adequate known scientific basis for his opponent's claims with regard to use and curative powers of their methods. The fact remains that history has shown us that often enough people like Singh have been wrong (I think for example of the work of Edward Margolis on the tribulations of Copernicus and others), but that does not mean that Singh should be deprived of the right to forcefully state a view that by the standards of his peers (including myself) is correct, reasonable and in the public interest. Thus systematic and fair law reform need a lot of steps, and without them, people's rights are left in jeopardy.
# posted by uv : 4:54 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
