Read this, then weep... - Cameron Neylon

Such a shame. I imagine this went right to the top and the order came down from on high. Nature is owned by Macmillan which is itself owned by Holzbrinck. It would have been nice to see them make a stand - but I don't blame them really (it takes a special kind of executive to go against legal advice) - and I think it cool that they handled it nicely and by telephone. "dubious assertions" lol - it was a blog post. It would be nice to find out who you mentioned in the post was the one who threatened to sue. - Andrew Lang

Blimey, gov. - Graham Steel

There's already a discussion of it here: http://ff.im/3o83q I always hated the idea of blog censorship. Especially if they're well thought out and written. Controversy spurs great discussions. Very poor decision on NN's part - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Some opinion being expressed here in apparent lack of awareness of internet law. - Maxine

Internet law? You'd be the first to explain to us why this occurred, Maxine. I have a feeling it has more to do with pissing off people with money than it does with any law in any country. Unless Nature is run out of Iran or North Korea? Unfortunately, Nature owns the site and can do whatever it wants as far as censorship is concerned, but there was absolutely nothing in his post that was against the law. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Brian what qualifications do you have in English law? - Bob O'Hara

Am I privileged in that I can still read the supposedly removed post? Or is there only a word or two that could be construed as libelous, that has been subtly changed? - Heather

What is "internet law"? - Bill Hooker

None, but if that post is considered libelous under British law, it's time to change a few things. Also, I forgot that NPG was headed up in Britain. So apologies on that :( - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

@Bill- legislation written in 133t. - Noah Gray

Look at the comments on the Nature News article - you can always tell a crazy. http://www.nature.com/news... More seriously, I understand that a great deal of deliberation and consideration were undertaken, but there has to be a better way to handle this. Not just this specific incident, but all future incidents such as this. This really makes the case for a legal defense fund. Getting sued isn't the worst thing that can happen. People not contributing because their post could be yanked at the merest suggestion of a lawsuit would be the worst that could happen. - Mr. Gunn

@Noah -- unlike standard legalese, I can read 133t. :-) - Bill Hooker

The question of libel isn't "Is it published in England?", it's "Can it be READ in England?" Hence a Ukrainian businessman can sue a Ukrainian website hosted in the Ukraine for an article written in Ukrainian - *in England*. The reason? One or two Ukrainian readers in England could access it. http://us.ft.com/ftgatew... This is a problem if you have assets accessible from England. - Alun Salt

+1 Mr. Gunn. - lol Noah+Bill! - Björn Brembs

As Alun says. His point, and some others, are made in our NN discusssion here: http://network.nature.com/groups... . - Maxine

So are you suggesting we ban Britain from the internet :P - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

http://scienceblogs.com/science... - Bora Zivkovic

Brilliant idea, Brian! If someone in the UK wants to use the web, they have to have a second home abroad. (ETA: to be clear, this isn't sarcasm - I genuinely like it!) - Bob O'Hara

http://twitpic.com/6ckbe - Frank Norman

What if they just got their internet through an off shore proxy service? :P - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces

Why are Nature Network and ScienceBlogs different in this respect from Blogger and Wordpress? - Karen James

The only difference that I can see is that NN and SB 'approve' those who have blogs on their sites. So, they may have a liability when it comes to libel suits that Blogger and Wordpress (which have no such selection process) do not have. But be warned: I am not a lawyer. - Stephen Curry