Some of us don't live in countries with constitutionally secured freedom of speech.  Some of us, a very luck, very few of us are Simon Singh, who also happens to live in a country without a freedom of speech guarantee.  Ok, technically, he lives in geopolitical area under the authority of a state that consists of exactly one 4'6" old lady.

Simon Singh made our Heroes of Science (not to be confused with our delicious Gyros of Science) for choosing to fight a libel suit brought against him by the Britsh Chiropractic Association for an article he wrote in The Guardian.  I'll explain the case.  No, wait, there is too much.  I'll sum up. 

Singh asserted that British chiropractors were promoting bogus treatments, specifically the use of chiropractic to treat colic without scientific evidence to support its use.

The BCA sued Singh for libel.

A British judge ruled that Singh's use of the word bogus implied not only that the treatments are not supported by evidence, but that the chiropractors were being intentionally deceptive.

Singh has appealed the judge's ruling.

Part of the ridiculousness of this case has to do with British libel law.  Under British law, there are two elements to a libel case.  Once the statement in question must be ruled to be damaging, the burden of proof is on the accused to demonstrate that the statement is true.  While Singh is clearly correct that chiropractors were promoting the use of chiropractic for conditions without evidence, it will be very difficult to prove that the chiropractors were being intentionally deceptive, especially considering that Singh never intended that interpretation. 

You can read all about the Singh case and sign a petition to encourage the British to change their libel laws in order to promote open, honest, and scientific public discourse.  Or, they can do nothing and allow quacks use bullyin tactics to suppress the truth.  You pick.