Skepticism and Libel.
So recently, it's really been sticking in my craw that otherwise smart people are bandwagon jumping without thought. Now... They might argue that they've thought it over, but the alternative is that they just hate 'people', so I'm going to ignore that counterargument. Because it just doesn't seem to be true.
These smart people seem to be arguing that a blanket right to say whatever you want about whoever and whatever you want trumps all else, including the safety of the people you're talking about, and their job security, and all the rest. Which doesn't seem to fit: if you ask these people “is it ok to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre?” I suspect (and hope!) that they'd say “no”. Similarly, I'm fairly sure that they're not likely to protest against the curtailment of free speech that is “talking about bombs, hijacking and terrorism in the airport is a federal offence”. Why are they ok with this? I'll put words their mouths: because the negative consequences of those speech acts are apparent, and we don't think that a blanket right to say whatever you want about whoever and whatever you want trumps all else. We think it's very important, sure, and it trumps a lot of stuff, but not everything.
And this leads nicely into talking about Libel. Those 'ludicrous libel laws' of the UK are talked about a lot over here, given the recent debacle with Simon Singh. I'm not going to talk about that particular case, I'm going to talk about the conceptual framework (ie the ethical framework) in which the different legal codes are based. As a tangent: anyone who tosses around the phrases “works backwards” or “in fact their laws are so bad” indicates to me that they've spent about 0 time thinking on the subject, and are just reacting. Skeptically Speaking, I'm looking at you. (for those reading in the UK, Skeptically Speaking is a Canadian radio show that seems to be primarily a cheer-leading squad for skepticism. I've listened to it twice, and I've regretted both times. http://www.skepticallyspeaking.com )
UK Framework (UKF): A says something bad about B. B goes to court claiming that A committed Libel. A has to demonstrate that what they said wasn't libellous.
North American Framework (NAF): A says something bad about B. B goes to court claiming that A committed Libel. B has to demonstrate that what A said was libellous.
The difference is the onus of proof. It looks like a small difference, to those who don't really care about law and rights, but the implications are actually quite huge.
To someone raised under the NAF, whereby in a legal case the defendant is 'innocent until proven guilty', this seems to reverse that situation where the defendant in a libel case “is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent” (Skeptically Speaking, Oct 9th). First off: this concept is only in play in a criminal case, not a civil case. This argument is entirely a Red Herring.
When the state prosecutes someone, when they have the entire resources of 'the state' to bring to bear, it's necessary to balance this out with requiring the state to proof the guilt of the accused. In contrast, a Libel case is a civil case, where two (theoretically) equally placed individuals dispute a particular set of facts. There is no 'guilt' in the legal sense here. Arguing this 'guilt' card is a use of the Prejudicial Language Fallacy. (yeah, I said it: Skeptically Speaking is what I listen to when I want to hear a train of fallacies rattled off, with no opposition from the other speakers)
Moving on to the actual issues at hand. A has said something about B. B makes two claims about that statement: i) the statement harms B in some way, ii) the statement isn't true.
Under both frameworks, the above is identical. If it harms B and is true, the case is thrown out in both courts. If it doesn't harm B and it's true, it's thrown out. If it doesn't harm B and it's false, the case is thrown out. Only in the case that the statement harms B and is false does the libel case proceed. Why? Because we care about harm in our societies. Some harm is considered to be justified (self defence, war), other harm is not (assault, murder). Some speech acts case harm (incitement to riot) and are dealt with accordingly. If the harmful speech act isn't true, then it's not justified, thus is the speaker liable for damages. If harmful speech act is true, then it is justified, and they are not liable for damages.
If your issue with the libel law is the idea that speech acts can harm, you're pretty much done reading here. You're also wrong: briefly think about the repercussions of creating a rumour that you saw cockroaches in a local restaurant, and publish that rumour in a widely circulated newspaper. Such an act would harm that business. Where libel law comes in is regarding the truth value of that statement.
So for the sake of analysis, we'll assume that A's statement has harmed B in some way. We only care if the statement is true, or false, and how that plays out in each court. The bulk of the skeptics in North America seem to be working on the assumption that Libel laws are stupid because the statements made by Singh were true, and the BCA are attempting to silence Singh (and others) by dragging them through the courts. That's one case. One situation. Let's look at another:
B is a mid-20's, male, elementary school teacher. A accuses B of being a Paedophile. A makes posters, and puts them up around the school, in a six-block radius around the school (B lives local to the school), and publishes this accusation in a local circular (and online). Parents complain to the school. B loses his job. As a matter of fact, B has never touched a child in an inappropriate way, and is an exemplar of 'elementary school teacher'. B sues A for libel.
Under UKF: A needs to demonstrate the truth of the accusation.
Under NAF: B needs to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation.
Note: A has not claimed that B “has been convicted of paedophilia”. A has simply claimed that B is a paedophile.
How does one prove that one is not a paedophile? Where are the documents? The witnesses?
How does one seek employment when the previous grounds for termination is 'parents complained because they believed he was a paedophile'?
This is a ramification of the North American Framework for Libel. Under NAF, B's life is destroyed. Under the UKF, A can't prove the statement, and is subsequently sued to hell. (and rightly so)
Now: Same situation, but B is a paedophile, but never arrested.
Under UKF: A can present a victim/witness, and the case goes away. B's life is destroyed.
Under NAF: B, again, can't prove this negative statement. B's life is destroyed.
The more evidence in favour of the statement there is, the easier it is for A to prove their case under UKF, but nothing changes under NAF (in this regard).
The UK Libel laws, as they stand, protect individuals from malicious and damaging speech from other citizens. Are there situations in which they fall down? Absolutely. But so do the North American ones (as illustrated above).
Does a 'one libel law for all situations' exist? I think not. I commend those involved in the UK in changing their libel laws to be more context-specific, such as removing science writing from the libel laws, or changing the onus in those specific situations. I think it's reasonable to point to a Chiropractor and scream 'fraud!' at the top of one's lungs, without fearing being sued in return.
But claiming that the North American Libel laws are 'good' or 'reasonable', and that the UK Libel laws are 'backwards'? There's no place for Nationalism in skepticism. Be proud of the achievements of your fellow citizens, to be sure, but don't let the border blind you to analysis.
North American Skeptics: can we please stop the bullshit?