This is goodbye14: 01 12/03/2010, Simon Singh (contributor), Comment, controversies in science, guardian.co.uk, law, media, media, people in science,

This is goodbye14: 01 12/03/2010, Simon Singh (contributor), Comment, controversies in science, guardian.co.uk, law, media, media, people in science, Science, Simon Singh, Simon Singh (keyword), news, UK Guardian Unlimited

Being sued for libel is not only wasteful, writes Simon Singh, who takes over a lifetime. So this will be his last column

Almost a year after writing my first column of this site, I would like to welcome you to my last article.


At first I was able to deliver my monthly column in time, but my observations have become increasingly delayed, and this is my first time since November. The problem is that I've spent the last two years being sued for libel, which has taken large amounts of time. And now all of my remaining free time is dedicated to campaigning for reform of defamation.


The crippling and prohibitive financial cost of defending a defamation case is often highlighted, but equally terrible cost in terms of time and stress is rarely mentioned.


Recently I talked with Dr. Peter Wilmshurst, the eminent cardiologist who is being sued for libel for his comments on the effectiveness of a new heart device. Peter was under enormous stress when he received the legal papers on Friday, 21 December 2007 at 5.09pm, nine minutes which was closed after the majority of lawyers for their Christmas holidays. It was not until the new year that Peter was able to get any legal advice, so it was a Christmas of anxiety.


Maybe it was just as well that Peter was not aware of the implications of what to expect, ie at least two years of anguish, misery, and the threat of bankruptcy. Almost all his spare time was spent in the defamation case. At the end of his defense, he took two weeks of annual leave to work on documents. Moreover, dealing with ongoing legal issues prevented him from carrying out their usual medical research and various publications have been put on hold.


After chatting with Peter, I decided to count up how much time had passed the defense of the article published in The Guardian in April 2008 that led to the British Chiropractic Association suing me for defamation. I think I have spent 44 weeks solid on the defamation action spread over two years.


I'm in the fortunate position of having no employees, being an independent professional and financial resources are very favorable to have a wife. In any other circumstance, I can not imagine fighting a defamation suit because of the enormous sacrifices in question.


I should have begun writing a new book a year ago, but still can not develop proposals and talk with editors, because I have no idea what next year will develop.


The case could continue for another two years. If I win then I will not recover all my legal fees, but (even worse) never recover the time I spent poring over legal documents.


Before leaving, I urge you again to join the campaign for reform of defamation. If not convinced about the need for reform of defamation, try visiting the website of National Enquirer. If you live in the UK, then you will find a blank page except for the words "Page unavailable / under construction".


The reason is that the National Enquirer is so scared of the English libel law no longer sell magazines in the UK or makes web content available here.


You may feel that the lack of availability of the National Enquirer is not sufficient to justify the change in English law. However, more serious than the position of the National Enquirer is the fear that other American media will follow suit and that some fundamental American magazines, newspapers and websites will be available worldwide, except in Britain.


You may feel that I am an alarmist, but the major U.S. newspapers, including the Boston Globe and The New York Times, sent a memo last year to the House of Commons select committee on media, defamation and privacy. They warned they are considering ending the sale of its publications in the UK due to the threat of defamation. Profits from the sale of newspapers here in terms of gains are outweighed by potential losses in cases of defamation.


If publishers were unsold copies in Britain, which is almost certain to also block their content online, because otherwise the threat of libel would remain.


Thereafter, it is useful for everything from academic journals to blogs to follow suit. Very quickly, the United Kingdom could become an isolated society. In terms of freedom of expression and access to information, our nation would become the European equivalent of China.


That's just one of the reasons you need to sign the petition for reform of defamation.

Simon Singh (keyword)
People in science
Controversies in science
Law
Media law
Simon Singh (contributor)


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News