Comments on: Richard Smith: Is the BMJ too sensitive about libel?

By: Jenny Allan

Jenny Allan — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:50:00 +0000

Let’s be clear about defamation. It is about knowingly publishing
false information, in order to damage another person’s reputation or
credibility. I am not surprised the BMJ has never lost a libel case, but this does not mean these previous libel cases had no merit. These days, winning a libel case is about having the means to employ the best lawyers, and pay the considerable costs of taking a case to court. As Mr Smith points out protracted court cases can cost millions of £s or $s.

By: susanne stevens

susanne stevens — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:06:00 +0000

It seems that somebody or several people are already ‘in the know’ as to who he is, including the editors who did choose to publlsh in other journals . Has anybody contacted him to ask for his version of the event?. He might even wish to publish an account himself either to defend or explain his actions. If the reasons for getting caught up in fraud were more widely explained by those who have been involved that would maybe help in knowing how to tackle cases in future. It cannot just be for financial gain or prestige or even knowing that they are unlikely to be caught out or sued or exposed as there would be a lot more of it.

By: JohnDStone

JohnDStone — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:42:00 +0000

I am just mildly puzzled: to acknowledge a risk of legal retribution is not the same as setting out to defame, so you have posed the issue in a slightly odd way. Another scenario which I have encountered is the idea that because there may have been findings against someone it is alright to say whatever you please about them. I think that might be pretty dodgy behaviour. Perhaps you wouldn’t agree?

By: Richard Smith

Richard Smith — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:54:00 +0000

No, I’m not saying that. Lots of defamation is acceptable and right to publish because it’s true. I’m confident that the defamation in my blog is true. The problem with English libel law is that the onus is on the defendant to prove that the defamation is true, which is often expensive and difficult. It’s easier and cheaper to let the villain go undefamed.

By: JohnDStone

JohnDStone — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:35:00 +0000

So, let’s get this straight, you are saying defamation is great if you can get away with it? And that’s the proper stuff of an academic journal?