Well said Roland. Academic freedom is important. The only restraints on that freedom should be the laws that apply to all Australians regarding speech. Poynter's article, along with a churlish attempt by a group of Young Libs to attack so-called 'academic bias' points to a disturbing trend to silence academics. The same people then loudly proclaim freedom of speech when their views are attacked

There should be no limiting of freedom of speech, and the professors are free to express their opinions. They are also free to express their opinion that the world is flat.

However, the issue is that when they put their names and positions within the acedemic institute they represent, they attach the credibility of the institutions to the their opinion.

In spite of the disingenuous claim by RB that there is some accounting req in the legislation, the reality is that the letter is published by persons with no more connection to the subject than the plumber down the road.

The green movement has never had a problem misrepresenting information, and as this misrepresentation is not illegal there is in reality very little that can be done unless the universities object.

Soft centred lefty article because someone had a go at them in OLO.

The biggest problem facing academics (in some disciplines) is the academics themselves. Many would sign anything fuzzy in the staff room because it seemed to segue with their self centred political outlook.

Academics can spend days discussing books such as 'Who moved my cheese?' but when it comes to freedom. the kind of freedom they are talking about is whether I'm free on Friday to see students - and I'm not.

Shadow Minster got it right re his comment on academics and plumbing.

@Shadow Minister: the issue is that when they put their names and positions within the acedemic institute they represent

No, that is not the issue. Being transparent by revealing who you are, what you do, and your affiliations is never an issue.

Not doing those things can be an huge issue. For example Mark Poynter, rightly attacked the poll in that open letter. Nowhere did they reveal the poll was commissioned and paid for by the Wilderness Society. I attack the AEF not being more transparent about who they represent.

If you want to attack the academics or the organisation, find something they lied about, or where they deliberately deceived by omission. As far as I can tell they did neither of those things.

Wood production in Australian forests is restricted to just 9% of public forests and supported by strong government controls and policies. In reality the biodiversity and other non-wood values are already being conserved in the majority of Australian forests that are legally unavailable or unsuitable for wood production.
The signatories to the open letter are simply another politically motivated green lobby group seeking to close down the native forest timber industry in Tasmania by means of highlighting perceived (rather than actual) environmental problems and imagined issues of governance.
Ironically, should they achieve their goal, they will be helping to drive up the demand for tropical hardwoods, many sourced by illegal exploitation of rainforest and associated fragile ecosystems in developing countries.

RStuart,

Affiliations are always an issue. All the corporations I have worked for have required that emails contain the phrase "does not necessarily represent the views of the company" and discourage the use of the company's name when giving opinions on Facebook etc, precisely because the company does not want to lend its name to anything unless it has been vetted.

The universities apparently do not have this concern.