The justification for the removal was that it was “spreading information which may cause harm”.

Again, note the language. Not “false information” or “factually incorrect information” only “information which may cause harm”. Nobody (thus far) is disputing the method of the work, or the accuracy of the findings.

If thorough research “may cause you harm”, what does that really say about you? If truth doesn’t fit the “current climate”…what does that say about our climate?

• Freedom is implicitly against the law
• Ego investments that get in the way
• Why Agorism is #winning
• Why the "Civil War" is just as much hokum as a marvel movie

What the defence should have said at this moment is “Madam, the dogs in the street know that people were tortured in Guantanamo Bay. In the real world, it is not a disputed fact. If Mr Lewis’s instructions were to deny that the earth is round, would our witnesses have to accommodate that? The truth of these matters plainly goes to the Article 10 Defence, and by pandering to the denial of a notorious and plain fact, this court will be held up to mockery. We will not discuss such ludicrous censorship with Mr Lewis. If you wish to rule that there must be no mention of torture in evidence, then so be it.”