Mr. Dezenhall’s advice to the publishers’ association, says Nature, included a suggestion that it focus on messages such as “Public access equals government censorship.”
That advice echoes throughout Prism’s Web site in language like this: “Policies are being proposed that threaten to introduce undue government intervention in science and scholarly publishing, putting at risk the integrity of scientific research.”
The site, announced late last month, decries “bureaucratic meddling,” and warns that the peer-review process will be undermined “by compromising the viability of nonprofit and commercial journals that manage and fund it.”
Censorship? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
ARL’s talking points memo, addressing the nonsense that Prism would like us all to believe.