Libel Chill and Me « Skepticism « Critical Thinking « Skeptic North - 0 views
www.skepticnorth.com/...libelchillandme
Libel Slander Law New Media Skepticism Science Communication
shared by Weiye Loh on 22 Feb 11
- No Cached
-
Skeptics may by now be very familiar with recent attempts in Canada to ban wifi from public schools and libraries. In short: there is no valid scientific reason to be worried about wifi. It has also been revealed that the chief scientists pushing the wifi bans have been relying on poor data and even poorer studies. By far the vast majority of scientific data that currently exists supports the conclusion that wifi and cell phone signals are perfectly safe.
-
So I wrote about that particular topic in the summer. It got some decent coverage, but the fear mongering continued. I wrote another piece after I did a little digging into one of the main players behind this, one Rodney Palmer, and I discovered some decidedly pseudo-scientific tendencies in his past, as well as some undisclosed collusion.
-
One night I came home after a long day at work, a long commute, and a phone call that a beloved family pet was dying, and will soon be in significant pain. That is the state I was in when I read the news about Palmer and Parliamentary committee.
- ...18 more annotations...
-
That’s when I wrote my last significant piece for Skeptic North. Titled, “Rodney Palmer: When Pseudoscience and Narcissism Collide,” it was a fiery take-down of every claim I heard Palmer speak before the committee, as well as reiterating some of his undisclosed collusion, unethical media tactics, and some reasons why he should not be considered an expert.
-
This time, the article got a lot more reader eyeballs than anything I had ever written for this blog (or my own) and it also caught the attention of someone on a school board which was poised to vote on wifi. In these regards: Mission very accomplished. I finally thought that I might be able to see some people in the media start to look at Palmer’s claims with a more critical eye than they had been previously, and I was flattered at the mountain of kind words, re-tweets, reddit comments and Facebook “likes.”
-
The comments section was mostly supportive of my article, and they were one of the few things that kept me from hiding in a hole for six weeks. There were a few comments in opposition to what I wrote, some sensible, most incoherent rambling (one commenter, when asked for evidence, actually linked to a YouTube video which they referred to as “peer reviewed”)
-
One commenter was none other than the titular subject of the post, Rodney Palmer himself. Here is a screen shot of what he said: Screen shot of the Libel/Slander threat.
-
Knowing full well the story of the libel threat against Simon Singh, I’ve always thought that if ever a threat like that came my way, I’d happily beat it back with the righteous fury and good humour of a person with the facts on their side. After all, if I’m wrong, you’d be able to prove me wrong, rather than try to shut me up with a threat of a lawsuit. Indeed, I’ve been through a similar situation once before, so I should be an old hat at this! Let me tell you friends, it’s not that easy. In fact, it’s awful. Outside observers could easily identify that Palmer had no case against me, but that was still cold comfort to me. It is a very stressful situation to find yourself in.
-
The state of libel and slander laws in this country are such that a person can threaten a lawsuit without actually threatening a lawsuit. There is no need to hire a lawyer to investigate the claims, look into who I am, where I live, where I work, and issue a carefully worded threatening letter demanding compliance. All a person has to say is some version of “Libel. Slander. Hmmmm….,” and that’s enough to spook a lot of people into backing off. It’s a modern day bogeyman. They don’t have to prove it. They don’t have to act on it. A person or organization just has to say “BOO!” with sufficient seriousness, and unless you’ve got a good deal of editorial and financial support, discussion goes out the window. Libel Chill refers to the ‘chilling effect’ that the possibility of a libel/slander lawsuit has. If a person is scared they might get sued, then they won’t even comment on a piece at all. In my case, I had already commented three times on the wifi scaremongering, but this bogus threat against me was surely a major contributing factor to my not commenting again.
-
I ceased to discuss anything in the comment thread of the original article, and even shied away from other comment threads, calling me out. I learned a great deal about the wifi/EMF issue since I wrote the article, but I did not comment on any of it, because I knew that Palmer and his supporters were watching me like a hawk (sorry to stretch the simile), and would likely try to silence me again. I couldn’t risk a lawsuit. Even though I knew there was no case against me, I couldn’t afford a lawyer just to prove that I didn’t do anything illegal.
-
The Libel and Slanders Act of Ontario, 1990 hasn’t really caught up with the internet. There isn’t a clear precedent that defines a blog post, Twitter feed or Facebook post as falling under the umbrella of “broadcast,” which is what the bill addresses. If I had written the original article in print, Palmer would have had six weeks to file suit against me. But the internet is only kind of considered ‘broadcast.’ So it could be just six weeks, but he could also have up to two years to act and get a lawyer after me. Truth is, there’s not a clear demarcation point for our Canadian legal system.
-
Libel laws in Canada are somewhere in between the Plaintiff-favoured UK system, and the Defendant-favoured US system. On the one hand, if Palmer chose to incur the expense and time to hire a lawyer and file suit against me, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I did not act with malice. Easy peasy. On the other hand, I would have a strong case that I acted in the best interests of Canadians, which would fall under the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on protecting what has been termed, “Responsible Communication.” The Supreme Court of Canada decision does not grant bloggers immunity from libel and slander suits, but it is a healthy dose of welcome freedom to discuss issues of importance to Canadians.
-
Palmer himself did not specify anything against me in his threat. There was nothing particular that he complained about, he just said a version of “Libel and Slander!” at me. He may as well have said “Boo!”
-
This is not a DBAD discussion (although I wholeheartedly agree with Phil Plait there).
-
If you’d like to boil my lessons down to an acronym, I suppose the best one would be DBRBC: Don’t be reckless. Be Careful.
-
I wrote a piece that, although it was not incorrect in any measurable way, was written with fire and brimstone, piss and vinegar. I stand by my piece, but I caution others to be a little more careful with the language they use. Not because I think it is any less or more tactically advantageous (because I’m not sure anyone can conclusively demonstrate that being an aggressive jerk is an inherently better or worse communication tool), but because the risks aren’t always worth it.
-
I’m not saying don’t go after a person. There are egomaniacs out there who deserve to be called out and taken down (verbally, of course). But be very careful with what you say.
-
ask yourself some questions first: 1) What goal(s) are you trying to accomplish with this piece? Are you trying to convince people that there is a scientific misunderstanding here? Are you trying to attract the attention of the mainstream media to a particular facet of the issue? Are you really just pissed off and want to vent a little bit? Is this article a catharsis, or is it communicative? Be brutally honest with your intentions, it’s not as easy as you think. Venting is okay. So is vicious venting, but be careful what you dress it up as.
-
2) In order to attain your goals, did you use data, or personalities? If the former, are you citing the best, most current data you have available to you? Have you made a reasonable effort to check your data against any conflicting data that might be out there? If the latter, are you providing a mountain of evidence, and not just projecting onto personalities? There is nothing inherently immoral or incorrect with going after the personalities. But it is a very risky undertaking. You have to be damn sure you know what you’re talking about, and damn ready to defend yourself. If you’re even a little loose with your claims, you will be called out for it, and a legal threat is very serious and stressful. So if you’re going after a personality, is it worth it?
-
3) Are you letting the science speak for itself? Are you editorializing? Are you pointing out what part of your piece is data and what part is your opinion?
-
4) If this piece was written in anger, frustration, or otherwise motivated by a powerful emotion, take a day. Let your anger subside. It will. There are many cathartic enterprises out there, and you don’t need to react to the first one that comes your way. Let someone else read your work before you share it with the internet. Cooler heads definitely do think more clearly.