4 ms·

“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.”

“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.” “Probably good for science”? That is science!

kortilla 2y ago
Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation
- bluGill 2y ago
  In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.
  - bugglebeetle 2y ago
    The same is true in Japan. Very few are aware of how little press freedoms and speech rights are protected there and have regressed further under assault from the ruling LDP party.
  - cortesoft 2y ago
    My understanding is it is a little more nuanced than that. The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is who the burden of proof is on. In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to prove the statements were false AND that the person knew them to be false when they said them (or should have known they were false). In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which is often not very easy.
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      In both bases proof is only on balance of evidence, so the difference between proving something is or isn’t true is not as great as it would be if the standard was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        It’s a lot easier to prove that there is a white swan than a black swan in the world somewhere.
  - appendix-rock 2y ago
    Very ‘ironic’ that this is quite a…dishonest representation of the truth.
  - smcin 2y ago
    My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. Truth defense. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
    - jakedata 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - striking 2y ago
        If you suspect a voting ring is interfering with HN in some way, you can ask the mods and they'll pull the data and tell you. Is it not the more likely explanation that some people / a moderator decided a summary makes for boring reading, especially given that you need 500 karma to downvote?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - oefrha 2y ago
      TL;DRs are frowned upon on HN because HN encourages people to read the article (especially before commenting) rather than Don’t Read the article.[1] You’re further breaking guidelines by complaining about votes. That said, your comment isn’t a summary of the article at all. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    This is ironically, not true. “It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences
  - immibis 2y ago
    The same in Germany.
komali2 2y ago
It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts: > The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation” I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?
- exegete 2y ago
  I saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.74.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895 https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
  - vitus 2y ago
    It's mentioned around page 30-31: > Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer > reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter, > 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and > stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by > the methods of litigation”). So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
    - exegete 2y ago
      Thanks! I don’t know why my search didn’t find that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kortilla 2y ago

Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation

bluGill 2y ago
In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  The same is true in Japan. Very few are aware of how little press freedoms and speech rights are protected there and have regressed further under assault from the ruling LDP party.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  My understanding is it is a little more nuanced than that. The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is who the burden of proof is on. In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to prove the statements were false AND that the person knew them to be false when they said them (or should have known they were false). In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which is often not very easy.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    In both bases proof is only on balance of evidence, so the difference between proving something is or isn’t true is not as great as it would be if the standard was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      It’s a lot easier to prove that there is a white swan than a black swan in the world somewhere.
- appendix-rock 2y ago
  Very ‘ironic’ that this is quite a…dishonest representation of the truth.
- smcin 2y ago
  My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. Truth defense. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
  - jakedata 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - striking 2y ago
      If you suspect a voting ring is interfering with HN in some way, you can ask the mods and they'll pull the data and tell you. Is it not the more likely explanation that some people / a moderator decided a summary makes for boring reading, especially given that you need 500 karma to downvote?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - oefrha 2y ago
    TL;DRs are frowned upon on HN because HN encourages people to read the article (especially before commenting) rather than Don’t Read the article.[1] You’re further breaking guidelines by complaining about votes. That said, your comment isn’t a summary of the article at all. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459
- mr_toad 2y ago
  This is ironically, not true. “It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences
- immibis 2y ago
  The same in Germany.

komali2 2y ago

It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts: > The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation” I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?

exegete 2y ago
I saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.74.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895 https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
- vitus 2y ago
  It's mentioned around page 30-31: > Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer > reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter, > 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and > stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by > the methods of litigation”). So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
  - exegete 2y ago
    Thanks! I don’t know why my search didn’t find that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]