The following is a collaborative effort by Peter Lipson, MD, a usual contributor to Science-Based Medicine, and Ames Grawert, JD, a soon-to-be-sworn-in attorney working in New York City.
Proponents of science-based medicine have always had one major problem—human beings are natural scientists, but we are also very prone to cognitive mis-steps. When we follow the scientific method we have developed, we succeed very well in understanding and manipulating our environment. When we follow our instincts instead, we frequently fail to understand cause and effect. This is how people on the fringes of medicine and science survive—intentionally or otherwise, they exploit our natural tendency to have too much faith in our own non-systematic observations.
One of the most important examples of this is the anti-vaccination movement (hereafter called the “infectious disease promotion movement” or IDPM). There have always been those suspicious of medicine and science, but the IDPM has taken this a step farther. They encourage people to “go with the gut”, ignoring centuries of science and public health data in favor of superstition. It’s not hard to exploit a parent’s fears. But exploiting these fears leads to real harm as many of us in the blogosphere have documented (and documented, and documented).
The IDPM is so fixed on their false beliefs that vaccination causes some sort of serious harm that they cannot be swayed by evidence. As each piece of their hypothesis is disproved, they move on to the next. Thimerosal doesn’t lead to autism? Then maybe it’s “the toxins”. Once the idea is fixed, there is no way to dislodge it. It simply shifts around a bit.
Since there is no science to lend legitimacy to the infectious disease promoters, they must rely on appeals to emotion. Most of their websites are full of testimonials, misinformation, and outright hostility. And when they really get backed into a corner, rather than hunkering down to do some real science, they sue.
Dr. Paul Offit is a nationally known expert on vaccination. He was featured in an excellent article by WIRED reporter Amy Wallace in which he said, among other things:
She lies.
The “she” in this instance is Barbara Loe Fisher, one of the leaders of the infectious disease promotion movement. She didn’t like this at all. Among her complaints she alleges the following:
The purpose of the Wired article was to create the impression that anyone not in support of universal and mandatory vaccination is irrational, uneducated, unscientific, controlled by fear and a danger to the public health. Wallace and Offit combined in an effort to defame and discredit those not in favor of universal and mandatory vaccination and singled out Plaintiff Fisher, whom the article describes as the “movement’s brain,” and the “media’s go-to interview for … ‘parents [sic] rights’” for condemnation as a liar.
To many physicians and scientists, this type of claim is hard to understand. Science is a process for finding and understanding facts. People can become emotionally tied to their work but science doesn’t care, and scientists often have vigorous debates about their work. Real scientists and real doctors must have thick skins.
So when someone is so attached to their own scientific opinion that they feel a need to use the legal system to protect their beliefs, many of us are left scratching our heads. Why wouldn’t she just try to find evidence to support her beliefs? How can a court possibly have something useful to say about a scientific question? What the Hell?
If you’re thinking that the law shouldn’t work this way — that angry combatants in the battle of ideas shouldn’t be able to leverage defamation law into silencing their more strident critics — you’re right. And it doesn’t. For better or worse, the American first amendment is a vigorous creature. Where other countries would hold defendants liable for negligently false and offensive speech, American law prefers that ideas be spoken, and their value decided by informed citizens, rather than lawyers and judges. This is actually a relatively novel topic in conflict of laws jurisprudence, and regardless of whether its assumption about the intellectual capacity of our public is accurate, it’s a uniquely American approach to the law, and one that Fisher completely ignores.
(FYI — all cases noted below in parentheses are Supreme Court cases, and therefore circumscribe any state defamation law. We don’t even need to reach beyond federal constitutional law to show where Fisher goes wrong.)
Virginia’s defamation laws follow the traditional American model, (although it eliminates the slander/libel, or speech/print distinction). Virginia therefore requires a showing of objective falsity, and a degree of malice, before defamation can be proven. The latter is keyed partially to whether the person pleading defamation is a “public person.” Because citizens should be free to question their leaders, as a matter of free speech, courts will only hold a defendant liable for defaming a public figure if the defamation occurs with actual “Sullivan” malice (referring to a famous Supreme Court case).
Accordingly, it becomes important to define a “public person.” While a private person speaking on a public matter — e.g., a small-time attorney commenting on a high-profile case — counts as “private” (Gertz v. Robert Welch), someone who voluntarily inserts herself in the role of shaping public opinion is a public person (Curtis Publishing v. Butts).
This distinction exists precisely because of people like Fisher. While she’s not a household name, she styles herself an opinion-maker, and has taken the requisite actions to make herself just that.
Critically, when it comes to public figures, the first amendment protects hyperbole, and some pretty wicked satire, too (N.Y. Times v. Sullivan; Hustler Magazine v. Falwell). A statement about someone’s character and honesty — “she lies” — may be offensive. But it’s this kind of vigorous dialogue that the first amendment not only protects, but encourages. Any conclusion to the contrary would hold our capacity for public debate hostage to a few sensitive players who “can’t take the heat.”
If you want a poignant example of just what Fisher’s argument would deprive us of, look no farther than her complaint. While talking about alleged distortions in the Wired interview, she writes:
Although before the Wired article appeared Defendant Wallace interviewed Plaintiff Fisher at length and derived substantial information from her concerning the risks and rights issues that mandatory vaccination begets, she chose not to include content reflecting that information in her article. (emphasis ours)
Give her credit for honesty: Fisher isn’t hiding the fact that, if we accept her argument, the editorial decisions of newspapers are now suddenly subject to judicial review. It may be that American defamation law is too generous, providing too much room for offense. But the line for which Fisher advocates would change one problem for a far more grave one.
In critiquing Fisher’s decision to “lawyer up,” we might also consider her choice of forum. Why federal court? First, note that the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in Fisher’s complaint is “diversity of citizenship.” She’s not pleading a violation of federal law; she’s pleading state-law defamation, but because the Constitution’s framers imagined federal court as a neutral ground between citizens of different states, federal jurisdiction is proper.
In diversity cases, federal courts apply state substantive law (there is no federal common law*). So she’s not trying to avoid state law. I suspect this is a prestige thing. Suing in federal court sounds better than suing in state court, requires better lawyers, and therefore costs more. Call it the Birther/Orly Taitz instinct. Even though litigating in federal court is impossible given the nature of her claim, she’s spurned the (slightly) more plausible venue of state court for the glory of federal court. It’s not gone well. Count this as still further prove that Fisher’s real desire is publicity, and the slim chance of vindication — not the redress of any real legal grievance.
Fisher’s actions betray a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and law. Science requires conflict, and the law does not protect us from the consequences of our ideas or the negative opinions of others. A free society cannot thrive on suppression of conflict, and science cannot progress without an atmosphere that allows vigorous, sometimes painful, debate.
Even before knowing the outcome (which is almost certainly going to sting for Fisher), this case is a major victory for those who favor free speech and the role it plays in science. It highlights the desperation of those whose cult-like beliefs are being discarded by the reality-based community. As the foundations of their beliefs rot, they cling to the hope that the law will save them from the onslaught of science. But they are likely to discover a painful fact: just as you have a right to your own beliefs, others have the right to remark on their arbitrariness and idiocy. Science, like the law, allows us to have our own opinions, but not our own facts.
For further analysis:
- Yes, But. The Annotated Atlantic. - November 7th, 2009 [November 7th, 2009]
- Health Insurance Benefit Costs by Region - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- For an Operator, Please Press... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Pollyanna With a Pen: Maine Governor Signs 18 New Health Care Bills into Law - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- AMA Sounds the Alarm, Medicare Making Yet Another Attempt to Cut Reimbursement - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Mass Governor Asks Blue Cross to Keep Higher Employer Contribution - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Lifespan and Care New England Plan Monopoly (Again) - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Dirigo Health: Con Artists, Liars, and Thieves? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- New Orleans: Health Challenges - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- August a Flurry of Activity - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Maine's Dirigo Health Savings One-Third of Original Estimate - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- “Methodolatry”: My new favorite term for one of the shortcomings of evidence-based medicine - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Suzanne Somers’ Knockout: Dangerous misinformation about cancer (part 1) - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- A science-based blog about GMO - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- A Not-So-Split Decision - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Military Medicine in Iraq - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The effective wordsmithing of Amy Wallace - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- A Science Lesson from a Homeopath and Behavioral Optometrist - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Join CFI in opposing funding mandates for quackery in health care reform - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Mainstreaming Science-Based Medicine: A Novel Approach - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Those who live in glass houses… - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- J.B. Handley of the anti-vaccine group Generation Rescue: Misogynistic attacks on journalists who champion science - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- When homeopaths attack medicine and physics - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The cancer screening kerfuffle erupts again: “Rethinking” screening for breast and prostate cancer - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- All Medicines Are Poison! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- When Loud Wins: Will Your Tax Dollars Pay For Prayer? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- It’s All in Your Head - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The Skeptical O.B. joins the Science-Based Medicine crew - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The Tragic Death Toll of Homebirth - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- What’s the right C-section rate? Higher than you think. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Recombinant Human Antithrombin – Milking Nanny Goats for Big Bucks - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Does C-section increase the rate of neonatal death? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Man in Coma 23 Years – Is He Really Conscious? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Why Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination Isn’t Quite Universal - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Ontario naturopathic prescribing proposal is bad medicine - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Naturopaths and the anti-vaccine movement: Hijacking the law in service of pseudoscience - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The Institute for Science in Medicine enters the health care reform fray - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Neti pots – Ancient Ayurvedic Treatment Validated by Scientific Evidence - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Early Intervention for Autism - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- A temporary reprieve from legislative madness - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- A critique of the leading study of American homebirth - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Lose those holiday pounds - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Endocrine disruptors—the one true cause? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Acupuncture for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Evidence in Medicine: Experimental Studies - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Midwives and the assault on scientific evidence - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The Mammogram Post-Mortem - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- An Influenza Recap: The End of the Second Wave - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The End of Chiropractic - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Cell phones and cancer again, or: Oh, no! My cell phone’s going to give me cancer! (revisited) - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Another wrinkle to the USPSTF mammogram guidelines kerfuffle: What about African-American women? - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Acupuncture, the P-Value Fallacy, and Honesty - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- The One True Cause of All Disease - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Communicating with the Locked-In - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Are the benefits of breastfeeding oversold? - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Measles - December 20th, 2009 [December 20th, 2009]
- Radiation from medical imaging and cancer risk - December 21st, 2009 [December 21st, 2009]
- Multiple Sclerosis and Irrational Exuberance - December 21st, 2009 [December 21st, 2009]
- Medical Fun with Christmas Carols - December 22nd, 2009 [December 22nd, 2009]
- Lithium for ALS – Angioplasty for MS - December 23rd, 2009 [December 23rd, 2009]
- “Toxins”: the new evil humours - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- 2009’s Top 5 Threats To Science In Medicine - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- Buteyko Breathing Technique – Nothing to Hyperventilate About - December 26th, 2009 [December 26th, 2009]
- The Graston Technique – Inducing Microtrauma with Instruments - December 29th, 2009 [December 29th, 2009]
- The “pharma shill” gambit - December 29th, 2009 [December 29th, 2009]
- Ginkgo biloba – No Effect - December 30th, 2009 [December 30th, 2009]
- Oppose “Big Floss”; practice alternative dentistry - January 1st, 2010 [January 1st, 2010]
- Causation and Hill’s Criteria - January 3rd, 2010 [January 3rd, 2010]
- The life cycle of translational research - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- The anti-vaccine movement strikes back against Dr. Paul Offit - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- Osteoporosis Drugs: Good Medicine or Big Pharma Scam? - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- Acupuncture for Hot Flashes - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- The case for neonatal circumcision - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- James Ray and testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) - January 10th, 2010 [January 10th, 2010]
- The Water Cure: Another Example of Self Deception and the “Lone Genius” - January 12th, 2010 [January 12th, 2010]
- Be careful what you wish for, Dr. Dossey, you just might get it - January 13th, 2010 [January 13th, 2010]
- You. You. Who are you calling a You You? - January 15th, 2010 [January 15th, 2010]
- The War on Salt - January 16th, 2010 [January 16th, 2010]
- Is breech vaginal delivery safe? - January 16th, 2010 [January 16th, 2010]
- Abortion and breast cancer: The manufactroversy that won’t die - January 18th, 2010 [January 18th, 2010]