“… 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!
“Probably good for science”? That is science!
> 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?
It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
> 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”).
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.
“It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.”
That said, your comment isn’t a summary of the article at all.