Which of the following two actions is the more reprehensible and should be subject to the greater opprobrium, and which, if any, should risk 5 year jail terms and a king's ransom in fines?

a) Exhibit a considerable lack of integrity by deletion of a commenter's previously acceptable posts without good cause.

b) Infringe the commercial privilege of a publisher's reproduction monopoly by promiscuously sharing a published CD in one's private possession without the copyright holder's authorisation.

Depending on your answer, either the law is an ass or you are. ;-)

I'd bet it's for $$$ reasons - either they've been advised to de-link her (perhaps some SEO suggested it to increase their page rank or avoid a drop by Google for some searches) or they are trying to get big name/big payout advertisers onboard who objected to that kind of content and made they remove it before paying.

Now that I think about it, for the past six months there's been far less "adult" content/links on there?

"dewonderfuled" "boingy"

Hee hee, love it.

I think the BoingBoing writers have discovered that they're being held accountable, and it shocked the hell out of all of them. They had themselves God, but found themselves pigeons.

Crosibe: law and ethics aren't the same thing.

ck: No, that doesn't seem to be a factor. Everything indicates it's something "personal".

Shelley: There does seem to be an aspect of exactly that, though more at big fish in a small pond finding they were unused to dealing with anything other than plankton.