really sorry things have come to this for Mumsnet - and that those irreplaceable early days with newborns were spoilt by this.
The legal precedence is very difficult, but I can understand Mumsnet's prference for totally avoiding the possibility of legal action having over them.
I do think that that the request to DSC, who host Mumsnet, is totally OTT - and good on DSC for also taking that stance.
I work in the telecoms industry and have some knowedge of the issues that Demon faced in the Godfrey case. In that case, as I understand it, it was the fact that the defmation was brought to their attention and was not then taken down that was the isse - not that it couldn't be mentioned in the first place. And, if I recall correctly, it was settled out of court anyway - but with much gnashing of teeth, as it was felt that it was attacking the free speech of the internet.
This seems to be taking that case one step even further in terms of stamping out disucssion.
FWIW, I have no opinion about the book in question - never bought it and to my knowledge have never participated in the threads on the topic. (Did have a baby who slept through from the start though - even if he didn't feed well and took over 8 weeks to get b/f established! - but he never had formula! )