The writer versus the British Chiropractic Association (BCA)

In the article "Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus," Steve Connor (science editor for The Independent) descibes an interesting intellectual freedom issue in the UK--which I did not realize has such "antiquated" libel laws. The BCA won a preliminary court ruling against writer Dr. Simon Singh who allegedly libelled the BCA by saying it promotes "bogus" therapies. Justice Eady deemed that Singh's use of the word "bogus" meant he was calling the BCA dishonest when in fact, "alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest." The judge seems to be playing semantics in order to sidestep dealing with an intellectual freedom issue. But Singh is appealing the ruling, and he has received the backing of people as diverse as the president of the Royal Society, scientists, actors, and novelists. Those supporters "believe that it is inappropraite to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence. The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence." They also denounce the BCA's action saying that when a powerful organization tries to silence someone of Singh's reputation, "anyone who believes in science, fairness and truth should rise in indignation." Well said! The BCA should have never taken Singh to court--despite their victory--the scientific community is the place to challenge scientific ideas; with the fear of a lawsuit hanging over their heads how can those who disagree with the claims and ideas of those with power voice their views? Discouraging scientific debate seems to me a very dangerous precedent to set, in terms of both intellectual freedom--and in this case, the health of those deciding whether or not to avail themselves of chiropractic treatment. Scientist Richard Dawkins calls the English libel laws "an international laughing stock;" if this is the norm for dealing with scientific disagreements (let alone less "precise" issues), I concour.