Follow-up: Writers' rights?

Following up on my previous post, the first thing is that I discovered that another writer had a similar experience with this publication, so it does seem to be their policy to "copy edit" without sending a writer any proofs or galleys before publication.

I received a private message in response to my blog post from an experienced writer and editor who told me that in fact I am in the wrong, that the journal once I have agreed to publication and despite the fact that I signed no contract, can do what it wants to my story. She suggested I take down my blog post, and apologize to the editors in question.

I decided that I had to look into this further. Can this be the case? And, if so, how many writers know this? If this is the case, why do so many decent and reputable literary magazines send writers proofs to approve if they don't have to? Purely out of respect, not of duty?

I posted queries on all my online writing groups... and of these hundreds of writers, the majority of whom have had many stories published, no-one knew the legal situation, our legal situation. I received another, very lovely, email from another highly experienced writer, artist and editor, who unfortunately said that she too believes that the magazine can do whatever they want to a story once accepted for publication.

Where are the lawyers? I thought to myself. I don't often say this, but we need to hear from a lawyer.

And, as if by magic, here is a lawyer, posting in response to my query, to say:

They absolutely do not have the right to change your work without your permission. When I was a first-year law student we read an appellate decision about a case brought by Monty Python against a tv network. The tv network had acquired the rights to broadcast some Monty Python footage, then "edited" the footage in significant ways without even telling Monty Python in advance. The network was liable for damages, because they had altered the work without the author's consent. Don't remember if it was a copyright violation, tort, breach of contract, or what, but the bottom line is they can't do that.

The actual case is here. And it says:

Although American copyright law did not recognize a cause of action for violation of artists' moral rights, the Lanham Act protected against mutilation of artistic works as a false designation of origin of goods.

My questions now are: does this apply across the Arts? And outside the US? And how is "mutilation" defined?

If anyone can clarify this situation, please post a comment here. If I know that a magazine has the right to "mutilate" my work, I will stop submitting anywhere. And I would really rather that wasn't the case!