Defamation, science, and free speech

In the US, the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech protects many insults that can be lobbed at a person. However, a line is crossed into defamation, a civil or criminal matter, if one maliciously makes claims that they know are false (or if they simply don’t care about the veracity of the claims). That’s defamation. There’s a case working its way through the US courts at the moment where a writer accused a scientist of manipulating data, and that scientist sued. Here’s a quote from the most recent judgement:

Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment. Arguably, several of defendants’ statements fall into these protected categories. Some of defendants’ statements, however, contain what could reasonably be understood as assertions of fact. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg (pictured above)
Case No. 2012 CA 8263 B
(DC)

If one wishes to discredit a scientist by claiming that the scientist perpetrates fraud, well, that has to be backed up by facts. So all you nuts out there, tread carefully with your post publication peer review. There’s plenty to criticize without crossing that line.

BTW, although you might have a strong opinion on this particular case (see links below for more information), some reasonable voices have warned against using libel statutes (related to defamation) in scientific cases. For example, in the UK, chiropractors have used libel laws to fight scientific criticism of some aspects of their practices.

More info

Older article with more commentary

Court decision, hosted by defendant Styen (pdf)