That’s not quite right, Fester.

The High Court didn’t find Ridd’s dismissal unfair. What it did say was that his right to academic freedom didn’t excuse how he kept breaching the university’s code of conduct, especially around confidentiality and how he handled internal matters publicly.

It actually overturned earlier rulings that had gone in Ridd’s favour, and found that JCU was within its rights to discipline him. So it wasn’t some sweeping defence of free speech, more like the opposite. It confirmed that universities can expect staff to follow internal processes and codes of behaviour, even when those staff are being critical.

He wasn’t dismissed for "speaking out," but for ignoring repeated warnings and pushing the boundaries of professional conduct. It wasn’t about silencing a dissenter, it was about the manner he kept going about it.

So while I get why some see him as a poster boy for censorship, the legal outcome doesn’t really back that up. And comparing it to how China handles dissent is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

What's this all about?

http://x.com/RennickGBR/status/1977927490426343498

AFP launches National Security Investigations teams to target groups causing harm to social cohesion
http://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/afp-launches-national-security-investigations-teams-target-groups-causing

I really don't want Australia turning into the UK.
Cops knocking on old peoples doors and arresting them for opinions shared on social media.
I think it's somewhat expectable that people who grew up in a different times have different opinions on things.
Where are we headed with all this, they keep shifting the goalposts.
Have we reached actually reached an official 'Thought Police'?
A fake world where people just smile and hold everything in?

Holding an opinion on the pro's and con's or grievances with demographic and religious changes or current global events should not be disallowed just because the issues concern races and religions, nor bs arguments that criticising a genocide is anti-Semitic.

As far as I'm concerned I should be able to say whatever I want.
- As long as the argument holds merit and is an extension of my true beliefs.
It doesn't really matter if people are offended, the right to speak the truth is more important.

Many of my past relatives fought for this country.
What did they fight for if I can't even have my 2 cents?
They landed them on the wrong beach at Galipoli.
Isn't it my right to criticise the government?

If you stop me from making arguments that hold merit and are an extension of my true beliefs, where are we then?

When Pauline Hanson said this:
"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians," she said.
"They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."
Can it be racist and true at the same time?
And how de we sort that mess out?

"That’s not quite right, Fester."

No, much as I said.

"He wasn’t dismissed for "speaking out," but for ignoring repeated warnings and pushing the boundaries of professional conduct."

That is a false statement. It is contradicted by the High Court judgement.

"So while I get why some see him as a poster boy for censorship, the legal outcome doesn’t really back that up."

JCU acted against Dr Ridd for publicly criticising the research of his colleagues. The High Court deemed Dr Ridd's public criticism of the research to fall within the scope of his academic freedom. He would have won his case had he not also gone to the press and complained of his treatment by JCU. That was deemed a breach of his confidentiality agreement and was what made his dismissal valid.

I think this podcast demonstrates a certain level of censorship.
Is the apple rotten at the core?

The discussion relates to the targeted killings of Palestinian journalists in Gaza, by the IDF.

Journalist Chris Hedges on being cancelled by the National Press Club
http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/chris-hedges-national-press-club/105913174

"Australia’s National Press Club was due to host Pulitzer prize winning journalist, the former Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times, Chris Hedges on Monday October 20, 2025. But after receiving the outline for his speech, they cancelled the event, saying they "decided to pursue other speakers". Hedges has been a significant critic of the way western media has handled the war in Gaza.

- National Press Club Compromised -

Here's another article.

Carlton club mascot sacked after walking out of young fan’s Bar Mitzvah
http://7news.com.au/sport/afl/carlton-sack-club-mascot-after-walking-out-of-young-fans-bar-mitzvah-c-20434351

>>It has been alleged that when the man realised that funds were going to soldiers, he suddenly walked out and made a racist comment.
“I’m not doing this for f---ing Zios (Zionists),” he allegedly said.
Guests were reportedly shocked by the incident.<<

I think it's level of audacity that offends me.

>>“The terrifying truth is that there is no safe space left. Not at synagogues, not in schools, not even in the joy of a family milestone,” he said.

“Wherever Jews gather, hatred finds a way to intrude in a loud, shameless, uninvited way.

“This moment should shake every Australian because when a man in a mascot suit feels comfortable spitting on the word Zionist in a country built on tolerance and mateship, we should all be asking, ‘what kind of nation are we becoming?’.”<<

- Cry me a river asshole, and tell your story walking...
On your way over to Netanyahu's place... Tell him.

What is it that these Jewish people don't comprehend that other people are sickened and disgusted at the vile actions of the State of Israel?
Some are conscientious objectors and don't wish to have any part whatsoever in their slaughter of innocent women and kids.

'We're not your mates, and we're very intolerant of your genocide.'

Fester,

My apologies. I had missed your reply to me. I thought it was a bit odd that you brought Ridd up again in another thread as though we hadn't already settled this. Now I know why.

You’re still oversimplifying what the High Court actually found. Yes, they agreed that Ridd’s academic freedom protected his right to criticise scientific work, but that was never the sole reason JCU took disciplinary action.

The university didn’t discipline him for his scientific views. They disciplined him for how he expressed them, and for repeatedly breaching the university’s Code of Conduct - including confidentiality obligations and public denigration of colleagues after being formally cautioned.

In fact, the High Court did not uphold Ridd’s unfair dismissal claim. It overturned the earlier Federal Circuit Court decision that had ruled in his favour. It found that JCU had the right to enforce conduct standards, and that Ridd’s breaches went beyond protected academic expression.

The key issue wasn’t whether he had the right to speak. It was whether he had the right to ignore university policies after multiple warnings. The court said no.

So while some commentators framed it as a free speech test case, the legal reality is more nuanced. The High Court didn’t say “Ridd was right.” It said that academic freedom doesn’t give you carte blanche to breach workplace standard, and that JCU was legally entitled to act as it did.

That doesn’t mean no debate can be had about academic freedom. But Ridd’s case doesn’t prove what many claim it does.

I trust this clears things I up.