New Scientist article pulled due to legal threat
The New Scientist article how to spot a religious agenda (which we recently discussed) has been self-censored because of a legal threat.
Any one know any more details?
Full text still available here.
Wiki info here.
PZ Myers comments here.
More comment here.
It did strike me as a rather witless article.Is there any such thing as agenda-less communication? All communication is dsigned to attract attention, to persuade, to influence, or [too frequently] to coerce.Identifying agendas, open or covert, is surely the essence of effective communication. There is nothing sinister about having an agenda, so long as you don’t dissemble about its purpose and try to pass it off as something else [as Creationists do when attempting to get their beliefs taught as science].
It must be serious. New Scientist is arguably the best periodical on the planet. It’s never been backward about reporting on ‘attacks’ on science and specifially groups who wish to change the way science is presented or taught, especially in the US.Regards, Paul.
Whether self censored or not, this censorship is entirely unjustified. It was an informative article which I found to be pretty much spot-on in all its points. Too many people are oblivious to the agenda that creationists and ID pushers have in science, particularly here in the states. Terms like “academic freedom,” sound really good if you don’t dig deeper into the aforementioned agenda.
I’ve put another copy on my blog. I expect it’s just because somebody mentioned in the article objects to being lumped in with creationists, so New Scientist is being pro-active by temporarily removing it while the complaint is investigated. Not a problem since the content is now elsewhere on the internet.
Any idea of the likely suspects (complaints)?It was in the magazine, so I wonder it the back issue is going to be halted too.,,
Frankly, it wasn’t a very good article, and they would have been better off not publishing it. Anticant has it right in calling it witless. But since they did publish, and have now withdrawn – I wonder what the legally objectionable part was??