Scientists maybe able now to speak their mind in the uk
5rb.co.uk
5rb.co.uk
The scientist was sued for libel for making statements of fact about chiropractors. (Remember that in the UK the fact that you're saying something true is not a defense against libel. This is one reason why people seeking to sue for libel try to sue in England.) But that was overturned because it was ruled that the scientist was making a statement of opinion, not fact, and therefore could be held to a more generous standard.
So scientists are allowed to comment about pseudoscience so long as they are clear that they are making statements of (supported) personal opinion rather than statements of fact. As messed up as the USA can be, I'm suddenly glad I don't live in England.
We would respectfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel action over a scientific controversy, Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994): “[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.”
From http://www.5rb.co.uk/docs/BCA%20v%20Singh%20[2010]%20EWCA%20...
My understanding of UK libel law was based on comments made by Greg Palast some years ago about the difficulties he'd encountered in England, and then noticing reports in the BBC and elsewhere over the years about libel tourism. However a quick check of Wikipedia verifies that I was mistaken, the truth is a defense. Though one that seems too hard to apply in practice in the UK.