By GREGORY KATZ
Associated Press

LONDON - A British science writer chipped away at the country's harsh libel laws Thursday with an appeals-court victory in a case that has become a rallying point for free-speech advocates.

The decision for Simon Singh was hailed by his backers as an important step in a country that has become a haven for "libel tourism" because its law often favors people and corporations bringing claims against individuals.

Singh's case revolves around his 2008 column in The Guardian newspaper challenging the British Chiropractic Association's claim that chiropractic treatment can remedy a wide range of childhood medical problems, including colic and asthma.

The group sued Singh, and a lower court ruled last year that he could not simply claim that his views were fairly held opinions but would instead have to prove in court that his assertions were factually accurate.

The three-judge appeals court panel ruled unanimously Thursday that the decision was wrong, opening the door for Singh to argue that his words were opinion, not fact, and that it would be unfair to require him to prove their accuracy in court. The decision will greatly improve his chances of prevailing over the association.

Scientists, free-speech advocates and journalists argue that open debate is being stifled in Britain by the ever-present threat of libel charges. The ruling comes as a group of legislators is seeking wide-ranging reforms to Britain's libel laws to limit their chilling effect.

Singh called Thursday's court decision "brilliant" but said he has incurred hefty costs.

"It is extraordinary this action has cost 200,000 pounds ($300,000) to establish the meaning of a few words," he said, calling for substantial changes to libel laws.

He said there was not "a jot" of evidence to support the claim against him, and that the chiropractors' group is happy to make bogus claims about the usefulness of its treatment.

Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge said the court would become "an Orwellian ministry of truth" if it forced Singh to prove his arguments in court at the behest of the group he criticized.

In an unusual step for a British judge, he referred to a 1994 judgment in a U.S. Court of Appeals case that also involved scientific matters.

He cited the assertion of a U.S. Circuit Court judge who said people claiming to have been libeled "cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views."

The chiropractors' association plans to press its case and may seek to have the decision overturned in the Supreme Court, said Richard Brown, the group's president.

"The motivation for this action was always to clear our good name, particularly in respect of the implication that we acted dishonestly," he said. "It never was, and it is still not our intention, to curb freedom of speech."

Jo Glanville, with the London-based Index on Censorship, called on the chiropractors' group to drop its case because of the Court of Appeals decision.

"The ruling today is a significant victory for the defense of freedom of speech," she said Thursday. "It's essential that scientists and academics are allowed to criticize and question treatments, medical practice and research and today goes a significant way toward lifting the chill on freedom of expression."