The Gagging of Great Britain... and Beyond
There are many things we can criticise the US for, but freedom of speech is not (at present) one of them. The US not only have the valuable First Amendment rights to freedom of speech but these rights have been explicitly expanded by "The Speech Law", a law with the express purpose of protecting Americans from the toxic laws of the British libel courts.
London has become the "global capital" of "libel tourism", a shameful place where the laws are so deeply in favour of wealth that rich dictators and crackpots can silence writers all over the world. This has huge global implications. Ethiopian billionaire Sheikh Mohamed Al-Amoudi recently won £175,000 and £180,000 in default judgements against the Ethiopian journalist who runs the Ethiopian Review from exile in the US. See also the case of the "Ukrainian attacked in a Ukrainian newspaper in Ukrainian in Ukraine" - in British libel courts.
But the effect of the British libel laws is even more pernicious, we often hear of the speech that is actually banned when an author is crushed by a multi-million pound judgement and the Streisand Effect takes hold. What we never hear about is the speech that is silenced before it is even published, through fear of aggressive libel actions. A new book exposing the secrets of Scientology is effectively banned in the UK for example, not because of any existing libel suit, but because every single publisher approached was too afraid of a libel suit to release the book in the UK. The question we should be asking is how much material on the desks of The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent ends up in a file drawer, waste paper bin or paper shredder because of the same self-censorship? This problem was bad in the age of the financial boom, back when writing was actually profitable. Even then, Private Eye was nearly bankrupted by its libel expenses and only survived by appealing to its readers for cash. But now, when many newspapers are barely breaking even, publishers simply can't afford to defend themselves against frivolous libel suits. The end result is that the rich and famous can now successfully silence their enemies through self-censorship.
What does this have to do with science? There are endless cases of science journalists being silenced through dodgy libel claims. The Guardian had to pay out over half a million pounds to defend Dr. Ben Goldacre against Matthaias Rath, the vitamin pill manufacturer - as Goldacre describes in "The Doctor Will Sue You Now", a chapter of the book "Bad Science" - released online and in later editions because the libel suit prevented the chapter being published in the original edition. The Guardian was left hundreds of thousands of pounds out of pocket and Goldacre laments: "Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with endlessly cross-referenced court documents" - this the consequence of Goldacre winnning the case. Similarly, Simon Singh spent "£200,000 and two years of his life" defending himself against the British Chiropractic Association, before winning the case but coming out financially wrecked.
The problem with British libel laws is that rather than the litigant having to prove you lied, you have to prove the truth. For example, to take an old analogy lets say you claim that the Floating Teapot Corporation is talking nonsense when they state as fact that there is a tea pot in orbit around the earth. As far as the the courts are concerned it is down to you to prove the point that this teapot does not exist - a clearly impossible feat.
We are now at a tipping point, the end of a truly massive three year campaign for libel reform in the UK. The reform bill which received all party support before the last general election has now been dropped from the Parliamentary timetable after a sabotage attempt by a bunch of Lords whose "prior restraint" "wrecking ammendment" would see British law sent back to the stone age. The amendment would mean "censorship before publication – that has not existed in this country for 300 years and that is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)"... "the wreckers also wish to punish newspapers that do not submit to state-sanctioned regulation by obliging them to pay exemplary damages if defeated in actions for libel". There are now only nine days left to get the Defamation Bill back in to Parliament before the bill is killed for good. So, if you care about free speech, forward this news to your friends in the UK and ask them to write to their MP and ask them to keep their pre-election promise to protect freedom of speech and do everything in their power to block the prior restraint wrecking amendment that has been introduced at the eleventh hour.
Image Credit: Adapted from art by Shutterstock/Red_Spruce
Step inside the unlikely friendship of a former ACLU president and an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice.
- Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia were unlikely friends. They debated each other at events all over the world, and because of that developed a deep and rewarding friendship – despite their immense differences.
- Scalia, a famous conservative, was invited to circles that were not his "home territory", such as the ACLU, to debate his views. Here, Strossen expresses her gratitude and respect for his commitment to the exchange of ideas.
- "It's really sad that people seem to think that if you disagree with somebody on some issues you can't be mutually respectful, you can't enjoy each other's company, you can't learn from each other and grow in yourself," says Strossen.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Learn how to redesign your job for maximum reward.
- Broaching the question "What is my purpose?" is daunting – it's a grandiose idea, but research can make it a little more approachable if work is where you find your meaning. It turns out you can redesign your job to have maximum purpose.
- There are 3 ways people find meaning at work, what Aaron Hurst calls the three elevations of impact. About a third of the population finds meaning at an individual level, from seeing the direct impact of their work on other people. Another third of people find their purpose at an organizational level. And the last third of people find meaning at a social level.
- "What's interesting about these three elevations of impact is they enable us to find meaning in any job if we approach it the right way. And it shows how accessible purpose can be when we take responsibility for it in our work," says Hurst.
Erik Verlinde has been compared to Einstein for completely rethinking the nature of gravity.
- The Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's hypothesis describes gravity as an "emergent" force not fundamental.
- The scientist thinks his ideas describe the universe better than existing models, without resorting to "dark matter".
- While some question his previous papers, Verlinde is reworking his ideas as a full-fledged theory.
TuSimple, an autonomous trucking company, has also engaged in test programs with the United States Postal Service and Amazon.
PAUL RATJE / Contributor
- This week, UPS announced that it's working with autonomous trucking startup TuSimple on a pilot project to deliver cargo in Arizona using self-driving trucks.
- UPS has also acquired a minority stake in TuSimple.
- TuSimple hopes its trucks will be fully autonomous — without a human driver — by late 2020, though regulatory questions remain.