Yesterday I related the story of an author ordered by Scientific American to remove the magazine's review of his book from his website. Today John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, responds, saying "we never complained about what he said or tried to restrict him from saying whatever he wanted; all we did was inhibit his unauthorized republication of our text. We have no objection to Lomborg saying or writing whatever he likes, however much we disagree with it. All we ask is that he respect our legal rights. No one needs to reprint an entire text to criticize it..." This all sounds very fine, but: since when does Scientific American get to decide what is needed or not needed in order to offer a criticism? I can count dozens of times where I have quoted an entire post or article in the course of a criticism. Saying you can only quote a few lines is the equivalent of saying you can only offer superficial criticism. Not good enough.
Today: 4 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
