It's been published. How in heck can it be "censored"? If this person got something published, and now the larger scientific community is shredding his work, TOUGH. IDers are beginning to whine more than Libertarians.
I hope you're not referring to the people at the P-Thumb as the "larger scientific community."
Creationists seem to think that critiquing an article is the same as censoring it.
Did you actually read the post? The article defending ID in question is not being attacked on scientific fronts (which would, after all, be completely fair and part of the process), but instead certain Darwinists are attacking the publication that reviewed and published it for having done so at all, delcaring the article to be shoddy science a priori.
Scientific dogmatism at its worst.
This sounds amazingly similar to a debate I had a week ago with two friends who didn't get the issue of Conservatives being shut down by mainstream publishing houses even though they have best sellers and make a mint for the publishers. Conservatives have to fight to be published by a nothing publishinghouse and their books sell like hotcakes, while Bill and Hill publish, get HUGE multimillion dollar advances on their books, then the books don't sell - end up in bargain bins and don't cover the advance.
Their response was - 'they get published so it isn't a conspiracy. No. They get published in spite of the major houses that won't publish them and have to slog it out to get there. There is a difference. Bias has a funny way of hiding in plain site and being deniable unless someone's taking notes. This is the information age. The bias is showing.