April 27, 2001

8:46 AM

Princeton Backs Down "Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain, regardless of the merits of the other side's case. We remain committed to free speech and to the value of scientific debate to our country and the world." Sorry for the drama, but as a scientist I have to go off and vomit now.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity (5 comments total)

Were it not illegal incitement, I would observe at this point that it is time to start burning down record companies and shooting executives.

But it is.

So I won't.

I'll just weep for America... and start buying my supplies for the Second American Revolution. This one will probably be against the big corporations; I hope you work for a small company.
posted by baylink at 9:18 AM on April 27, 2001

I heard this on NPR this morning and my neighbors could probably tell you how I reacted.
Those researchers have a DUTY to science to report their findings. That is the nature of the scientific process. There is no Hippocratic oath for scientists but, if there was one, this would be part of it.
btw, frednorman, baylink isn't referring to you in his hypothetical incitement.
posted by Octaviuz at 9:26 AM on April 27, 2001

I read an article (can't find it now :( that suggested that by backing down it gives 2600 ammunition to use in their lawsuit that the RIAA is censoring academic research.
posted by Mick at 10:45 AM on April 27, 2001

Lets hope some enterprizing lads over at Princeton, and perhaps, 2600, get this thing out and PLASTER IT ALL OVER the Web. Corporations SUCK.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:00 AM on April 27, 2001

Linky linky.

It wasn't Princeton that caved

Why backing down may be politically savvy

All-over web plaster
posted by grimmelm at 11:19 AM on April 27, 2001