A message to Nature Network users
Timo Hannay
Tuesday, 02 June 2009 22:38 UTC
I wanted to write briefly about our recent decision to take down a Nature Network blog post. We do not like having to do this, and have not had to do so before. It was a legal decision, not an editorial one. English libel law is strict — many say too strict — and if we take down a post then it is because we believe it to be in the interests of all concerned, including the people who posted the original material and any subsequent comments. Unfortunately I can’t provide a detailed account of our specific concerns in this case.
We are proponents of free speech, which is why we provide this site for users to post blog entries and comments. All of us on the Nature Network team are very grateful to those who contribute, and for your understanding when difficult situations like this arise. I am particularly grateful to the blogger in question, who has been very gracious in understanding and accepting our decision.
I realise that this is a very brief response to an issue about which much more could be said. But I hope it goes some way towards clarifying our position. Anyone who wishes to contact me about it can do so via my Nature Network profile page
Timo Hannay
Publishing Director, Nature.com
-
Replies
-
I thought it might be useful to add a few relevant links here.
Using the law to stifle scientific debate in the Nature Opinion forum at Nature Network. This online discussion thread contains links to some useful newspaper articles about blogging and the law.
Stephen Curry’s Nature Network blog post about the removal. In the discussion following this post is a useful clarification from lawyer “Jack of Kent” about legality of blog posts.
Nature News has a story up about Simon Singh appealing the libel ruling (3 June). The story refers to the Nature Network take-down of Stephen’s post. Stephen Curry himself also writes on his blog about Simon Singh’s decision, and more, in a post “Keep the libel laws out of science”.
-
It seems appropriate here to repeat part of the comment that I already posted here http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/4667?page=3
I can’t help thinking that Nature has been a bit pusillanimous about this. After all, it is my understanding that no complaint has been made and no letters from lawyers have arrived. Surely all that was necessary was to offer to correct any errors of fact (if there were any).
After the New Zealand Medical Journal published an editorial that I’d written about chiropractors, both the journal, and I personally had threatening letters from lawyers acting for the New Zealand Chiropractors’ Association Inc. Letters like that are seriously scary, But in this case the editor of the New Zealand Medical Journal, Frank Frizelle, was a bit more feisty than Nature Networks have been. He published the entire letter from the lawyers and defied them by ending his editorial on the matter with “let’s hear your evidence not your legal muscle”. After he, very reasonably, offered the chiropractors right of reply in the journal, they backed down and neither I nor the journal was bankrupted. He then allowed us the final to reply to the replies, and got away with it. All the details are on the web.
It seems to me that Nature should be a bit more pro-active about defending freedom of speech, as the NZMJ was, rather than giving in before a complaint has even been received.
-
I responded to part of this comment at the Opinion forum (see first link in my comment above for the live version). Without commenting on this particular case, a publication has accrued experience about how to edit submitted content before it is published so that it is lawful; and is also able to solicit legal advice before publishing it. This generally does not apply to blog posts or other user-generated online discussions.
-
I quite agree with my friend David Colquhoun.
Scientists must be courageous and just!
We Nature’s foreign readers respected and appreciated always this journal for its high scientific standards, unique and valuable papers, excellent aesthetic image. Nature was for us highest ideal – “atomichron” of scientific publications.
And it is very sad to see now such “overly cautious” behaviour of Nature’s administration… :(
I am not sure that the journal itself is to blame in it. Nature was always a journal with courageous and righteous publishing policy. Simply some persons of the journal must become more high-spirited in concrete difficult situation.Take heart, gentlemen!
-
Svetlana: as you suggest, Nature the journal is independent of Nature Network.
Nature, in fact, has an Editorial on this topic out today (459, 751; 11 June 2009), free to access online.
Unjust burdens of proof
English libel law adversely affects every publisher and website host whose content can be read in the United Kingdom. It must be changed.
Continues here. -
Oh, it is excellent!
Good editorial. Bravo “Nature”! :) Thank you very much.Dear Nature Network! Readers and users of Nature.com hope that you will not be worse than the journal “Nature”.
Good luck.
-
