- "undermines the peer review process." Yes that's right. If an article is freely available for all to read, that must mean that peer review has been compromised. Nevermind that openness in other areas (e.g., politics, law, etc) is well established to promote critical review (anyone heard of freedom of the press). But apparently in science, openness is bad.
- "opens the door to scientific censorship". Yup. Making publications freely available apparently means that you will stifle communication. Again, the logic here is completely silly - how on earth is openness connected to censorship?
- "undermining the reasonable protections of copyright holders." Yup, the publishers of scientific articles, who do not deserve the copyright to articles in the first place, are now saying that because they have stolen the copyright from many scientists, now we should defend them because they have the copyright. Kind of like saying that someone who steals some money should not give it back because of finders keepers rules.
For more on Prism see