Richard Dawkins contrasts the scientific way of resolving disputes with the British libel laws:
It is a lamentable observation that because of the way our laws are skewed toward the plaintiff, London has become the libel capital of the world. Litigants are coming to England from another country to sue people who live in a third country over a book that was published in a fourth country – the excuse being that a handful of books were sold here too. A nice little round-the-world jaunt for lawyers it may be, but sensible or liberal it is not. Nor is it just.
Of course there must be redress if you are maliciously attacked in a way that damages you. But if such a law is cast too wide it has disastrous consequences on the public interest, not least in the area of science and medicine where the stakes are high, profits and reputations are guarded jealously, and the vulnerable need to be protected from unproven or fraudulent claims for cures, whether by “alternative” therapists or big pharmaceuticals.
H/T to Chris Taylor Chris Myrick for the link.
Well I agree it’s a non-optimal setup… But are you sure I sent this to you? ‘Cause I don’t remember reading it before today. Somewhere out there is a guy swearing to himself “Damn, that’s the last link I send to Nicholas!”
Comment by Chris Taylor — September 22, 2009 @ 10:05
Hmmm. I thought I got it from you. Posted to Facebook, perhaps?
Comment by Nicholas — September 22, 2009 @ 10:12
No, definitely not. I mean I’m happy to accept the credit on behalf of the actual forwarder, but it would be bad form to claim it outright.
Comment by Chris Taylor — September 22, 2009 @ 10:23
Ah, once again I prove to be an idiot. It was Chris Myrick (formerly blogging at Asiapundit) who posted the link on Facebook. My apologies to both of you for the confusion.
Comment by Nicholas — September 22, 2009 @ 10:49