'Oh, this man says things about global warming that I don't want to be true and most certainly don't want to hear.
THEREFORE he must be utterly silenced about all other issues. I don't want to hear what he says about other issues because I disagree with him about this AGW.'

Its a strange way of 'following the science' which these people preen themselves about. Yet they've convinced themselves that they are on the side of the angels.

Suppressing opinion is never right...always wrong. Using the law in ways never intended, to suppress unwelcome views is only marginally better than just burning the books. There have been any number of instances throughout history of views and groups being suppressed 'lawfully'. The 20th century was rife with them. Just because it was lawful doesn't make it right. The Athenians were very careful to give Socrates a fair trial before executing him.

But these 'followers of science' are salving their conscience by asserting that its lawful to suppress views. They're wrong.

SR,

For once we agree. The right to freedom of speech seems today to be championed by conservatives. A couple of decades ago it was the progressive movement that fought for freedom of speech and the press, but now the "progressives" are the achitects of new waves of censorship and oppression. It would appear that the new freedom of speech and thought extends only to the present and rapidly changing left whinge dogma. The left are the new fascists.

As for the ABC, the largess of taxpayer money comes at the cost of a neutrality of political opinion. I have no problem with all ABC reporter speaking their minds on the condition that taxpayer funding stops.

shadowminister,

Naturally it follows that Ridd gets to speak his mind only if he receives none of the public funds which go to universities like James Cook. Therefore you seem to be agreeing he should have kept his trap shut.

If you are not then you are employing the same nauseating hypocrisy that Hasbeen has foisted upon us, something which I'd feel highly likely given your form.

Many vehement appeasers are actually the most guilty of the crime.

Dan

"Had Ridd been more supportive of AGW he would have been one of the elites you bang on about constantly. So it seems anyone who doesn't take your idiotic world view seriously is elitist” Diver Dan.

Well you got that wrong Diver. If Ridd had been an elitist he would have supported the club position, & lied to the public to keep the money flowing. It is precisely because he will not lie on que that he has been excommunicated from the club.

Jennifer Marohasy exposed them taking coral counting transits across the tidal drying coral flat, & declaring no live coral around Bowen. Every kid who lives in the coastal tropics knows drying flats are dead, but I suppose it is too much to ask that a marine biology professor have the same knowledge. That or more likely, they used the knowledge to promoter the lie.

"Naturally it follows that Ridd gets to speak his mind only if he receives none of the public funds which go to universities like James Cook. Therefore you seem to be agreeing he should have kept his trap shut". from the disgusting SR.

Obviously he endorses the academic world promoting any line if it comes with enough money attached, & suppressing the truth if it doesn't. Truly nauseating hypocrisy!@

Dear Hasbeen,

You are a joker aren't you. You get called out on your hypocrisy and react by calling me disgusting.

Really a bit harsh old boy. Much better to just acknowledge the obvious transgression and move on.

But you have decided to keep going. Oh well a bit of sport at least.

Ridd was originally awarded 1.2 million as compensation potential lost wages. Those wages are supported for the most part by tax payer money. His “elitist gravy train” has well and truly got a good head of stream up. You do know he chose the money over reinstatement which the University was willing to do?

Next you prattle out: “Jennifer Marohasy exposed them taking coral counting transits across the tidal drying coral flat”

Marohasy is a hack in my opinion. Her posts are a turgid mess. The turbidity is somehow “natural”, the coral is “alive and well”, but the dieback is the result of a lunar “declination cycle of 18.6 years”. She just blasts away and hopes something sticks. Typical rightwing nonsense which just lays the groundwork for the usual deflections employed by you all.

But that is by the by.

This comes down to freedom of speech and it was only the insistence of the union that it was included in the EBA otherwise Ridd wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Do you support the efforts of the Union to ensure free speech and why can't the same be afforded to ABC staff using their personal social media accounts?

Dear mhze,

Same question to you. You claim “Suppressing opinion is never right...always wrong.”. Will you defend ABC workers in being allowed to express their opinions via their own accounts?

Dear Diver Dan,

Thank you. That awareness does seem to be lacking in many on here.