"It is not a simple question". Yes it is. It's a matter of how much we really believe in freedom of speech, and does the freedom apply to all or to only the elites. When you are told something is not simple, or that a matter is 'complex, you are being mugged.

In a land where we allegedly have free speech and freedom of the press?

Academics can say whatever they like or espouse any theory, be it a flat earth or that they were molested by aliens or conceived by parents whilst standing in a hammock?

Except where they have signed up to contractual obligations that limit what they might promulgate or the verified facts and confirmed science is at complete variance with their propagandised patently ideological views?

Academics that use their position to promulgate patent falsehoods?

Have no place moulding the minds of our children!

If what you do or say has consequences you need to own them and move on!
Alan B.

It seems the crux of the matter is not who is right or wrong but the
way it was argued.
I seem to remember reading of famous very antagonistic clashes on
scientific opinion. It might well have an honored history.
Anyway I think it boils down to which result is correct;
One being a survey from an aircraft and the other from divers.

Just coincidentally the same week it goes to the High Court it also
pops up in the China chaired World Heritage Commission a declaration
that Australia has destroyed the Great Barrier Reef.
Hmmm

"Given the importance of the principle of the academic freedom, the burden on justifying restrictions to it should be very heavy indeed. In this case, that burden was not met". As with all disputes that reach the Courts, a judgement is needed and here we are given one, soundly argued, soundly based, and wise. It seems from the judgement that the core issue was one of behaviour. The boundaries of acceptable behaviour are always fuzzy and disputed. Judging breaches is made more difficult in absence of personal observation. If we are directly involved we can make concessions or we can incline to be harsh. Like a good painting we know good behaviour when we observe it. And bad behaviour. On paper Professor Ridd's actions seem unexceptional; his scientific analyses and conclusions were reviewed and accepted by research journals and seem in line with expectations of scientific research in these times. I think the clue is here: "Ridd’s conduct, however unpleasant..". He might indeed be an unpleasant chap. Never having met him I cannot tell. But the case was not about his behaviour or demeanour. It was about academic freedom. Again, I think the judgement of Stone and Forrest looks sound.

I wonder how many of us would still have our jobs
if we went around publicly speaking against the
institutions for which we worked or criticizing
the works of our colleagues disrespectfully?

Not many, I suspect would still have our jobs.

Prof Peter Ridd violated his code of conduct contract.
And the university took the opportunity to sack him.
I imagine he would have been warned quite a few times
before this happened. Yet he was prepared to risk it.

I'm not sure what if any compensation he received for
his sacking - but it was a risk he obviously was
prepared to take - and make a name for himself.

Academic freedom?

Does it truly exist?

Can we all really go off spouting whatever we please under
this guise? Be it a university or any other workplace?
I've worked in universities for many years - and I don't
know of anyone who would dare bite the hand that it is fed
by.

Academic freedom is great in theory. The reality is a bit
different - an anyone will soon discover.

Peter Ridd could see that his colleagues were straight out lying to the public about the state of the Great Barrier Reef. This has been shown to be so by a number of people. Do you think Foxy he should have shut up & let the colleague & the university by implication, publish straight lies about the reef to help increase their research grant funding. Surely there can be no other reason for them lying about a much loved icon

You can check the fact that they were lying by looking at the work done exposing this by Jennifer Marohasy by looking at it in her blog. There she shows the designed to "find nothing" way he examined the reefs around Bowen to claim they were all dead, & again shows the total impossibility of checking bleaching by aerial survey, as undertaken by this so called scientists. Yet he claims he has proven huge bleaching with such surveys.

Do you actually believe Peter Ridd would not be complicit in this fraud if he had not exposed it to the public. Do you think he should have shut up in support of an institution of very doubtful honesty?

Now we find their dishonest claim about the reef are being used by China to attempt to beat us about the head.

The man is a brave champion, & should be supported by every honest Australian. I look forward to your comment after you have checked the facts.