Not really sure why that would have been taken down. Sound reasoning, you didn't slander anyone, or swear like a sailor. Makes very little sense as to why it'd be taken down. It's not like they can be held accountable for anything that's said on their site... If anything, your post would have spurred a great discussion. NN is a little too smug for my tastes, and it's things like this that solidify my decision to stear clear from them. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Poor decision on NN's part, imo. - Bill Hooker

Sharpening my pitchfork while reading the article. - Mr. Gunn

Now that I have read the article and my pitchfork is sharp, where do I join up with the angry mob? - Mr. Gunn

"..on advice of its cowardly lawyers."? What advice? "We advise you to take this post down because ..."? - Andrew Lang

And here is another reason why I don't want to blog as part of a network ... be that Nature Network or ScienceBlogs. - Lars Juhl Jensen

looks fairly harmless to me but I Am Not A Lawyer (interesting post too, thanks Richard and Stephen for saving it) - Duncan Hull

I thought it a good post - I wanted to make some comments about the stuff on peer review panels which I thought deserved some digging into with respect to trust and openness - Cameron Neylon

I'd like to see what the lawyers' reasoning was, but if we assume their advice was correct, then NN did the right thing (commercially, at least: I don't see that it's their role to throw themselves under a bus on moral grounds). The problem is the crappy English libel laws. - Bob O'Hara

Time for a science bloggers defence/insurance fund? - Cameron Neylon

Does anyone know if this has happened previously on scienceblogs.com? - Katherine Haxton

No it hasn't (I have spies!). There have been legal threats, and apparently PZed was sued but the judge threw the case out. - Bob O'Hara

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the best place for info on free speech online, http://www.eff.org/issues... and http://www.eff.org/issues... [EDIT: guess EFF is of no use here, as summed up by Edzard Ernst: “Internationally it's agreed that UK libel laws are ridiculous”] - The Neurocritic

Maxine thinks we don't understand internet law. http://ff.im/3oSIa We're so ignorant. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

I believe she meant that you seemed to be jumping to conclusions about the reach of the long arm of English libel law as it applies to the Internet. Have a look at the forum discussion she started here and the links within provided toward the end of the second page of comments: http://network.nature.com/groups... - Heather

Cameron, you're onto something. If it's so easy to silence a critic, this will have a huge effect on all online commentary in the UK. While I do think companies that allow user contributed material have the moral responsibility to stand behind their users, legally if need be, I also understand that many won't. Geriatric traditional media holding companies view all of the web as some embarrassing little ghetto, so the only recourse is for an independent with nothing to lose and no master to mirror the controversial stuff. - Mr. Gunn

Brian, I think many people don't understand the relation between the law and the internet, including many scientists and lawyers. It's a fast-evolving situation. Have a look at the WSJ and other articles linked to in our Nature Network discussion "using the law to stifle scientific debate" for plenty of examples of what can happen. - Maxine

Wish I could "like" your response Mr Gunn. That's exactly what I was thinking. If you have to deal with this kind of garbage in the UK, what's the point in even running a forum there? @Maxine, I've been at this forum/internet thing for quite a while now and was using US laws as my reference. I forgot NPG was UK based, and that completely changes the game. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Can NN officially get re-registered in the USA? - Bora Zivkovic

@Bora, I think it all depends where the parent company is based. At least that's what it seems based on the links Maxine has provided. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Brian, it's nothing to do with where the parent company is based. It's all to do whether the content can be read in the UK. - F1000

Then why aren't Britains suing American forum owners? - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Why should they? - F1000

Because I'm sure there's a gigantic amount of slander and libel (as defined by the British laws) going on overseas. That's the whole reason this post was removed, right? An American judge would laugh at this if it ever went to court. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

No, why don't you pay attention? The post was removed because the NPG lawyers said that NPG would have been liable had someone brought a libel action. Just because someone is defamatory does not mean they're automatically going to get sued. Companies do have to protect themselves because they have lots of money and are easy targets. - Richard P Grant

You can say what you like Brian because (a) you have no money and (b) no one listens to what you say. - Richard P Grant

So why doesn't Fark.com get sued every day? And I'm going to ignore your obvious troll there Richard :P - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Because people are generally big enough to take shit from other people, without recourse to law. Bringing a libel action isn't a necessity, you know -- no one is forcing you to bring an action. Libel is a civil action, not a criminal one (in the UK anyway -- Aus/Canadia are I think different). - Richard P Grant

I'd like to know if NPG really feels no duty to stand behind people who blog/comment in its' forums. They can't police everything that's said, even if they're supposed to. - Mr. Gunn

Mr Gunn, your questions can be answered to the extent that it is possible by reading the two ongoing discussions at NN, one at Stephen Curry's blog post about the takedown, and one about the legal issues in the Nature Opinion forum. There are also links to articles there that make some aspects of the situation clearer than perhaps you are aware, based on the phrasing of your comment above. - Maxine