[LINK] Academics branded 'anti-US over FTA research'

[Alan L Tyree]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:00:06 +1000
Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:43:29AM +1000, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:24:51 +1000
> > Jan Whitaker <jwhit at melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > At 07:12 AM 1/08/2006, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> > > 
<SNIP> 
> actually, one of the left's major moral strong points (and
> simultaneously one of their strategic weaknesses) is their willingness
> to let others have their say, even if they vehemently disagree with
> them. it can't be any different, that is one of the things that
> distinguishes the left from the right...to adopt the same oppressive
> strategy as the right is to become them.

I don't think that this is correct now if, indeed, it ever was. It is
left wing students who disrupt meetings in this country, not the black
shirts. It is the left who has encouraged the passing of laws that
criminalise speech on the grounds that it is offensive.

The difference here is not between left and right. Left wing
dictatorships have always had speech laws which are identical (except
for the subjects permitted) to those of right wing dictatorships.

On the local scene, it is hard to tell the difference (from a free
speech perspective) between the left wing labour party and the right
wing lunatics of the libs. Both use all means possible to silence
dissent.

I don't think that there is a strong free speech lobby in Australia.
All sides find it too easy to override free speech by appealing to a
higher good. The problem is that the "higher good" differs depending on
your political outlook.

> 
> 
> > Your view, that it is ok even if you do not like the position
> > taken, is not the norm, Jan. Students disrupt speakers that they
> > don't like, universities don't let people like David Irving or
> > Andrew Fraser have the right to speak, 
> 
> the right to free speech does NOT include the right to demand a forum
> or the right to force others to listen or the right to silence
> opposing voices.

Or, it would seem, the right to speak when invited or the right to teach
when employed if your views are unpopular.

If students disrupt speeches on the basis that they do not approve of
what is being said, that is, for all intents and purposes, a denial of
free speech. Put another way, free speech is an illusion if you are
going to get the crap beat out of you for exercising the option.

And this is true whether the disrupters are well-meaning lefties or
brutal black shirt fascists.


> 
> > and governments of all varieties disagree with your
> > view that "shouting matches don't hurt people". 
> 
> disagreement is not the same thing as censorship.
> 
> i disagree with nearly everything you've said on this topic so far.
> i don't, however, dispute your right to say it. you are entitled to
> be wrong, entitled to be misguided, even entitled to lie through your
> teeth (although there may be social and/or legal consequences to being
> caught out at the latter - perjury, fraud, deception etc are, or can
> be, crimes).

I'm not sure how you can be in favour of free speech and yet disagree
with nearly everything that I have said.

I am in favour of free speech. I deplore the exercise of formal or
informal power that discourages it. I think that Macquarie acted in a
disgraceful way in its treatment of Fraser. And if the CSIRO story is
true, then that it equally as disgraceful. I think that it is
disgraceful that students use force to stop speakers instead of meeting
their arguments in free and open discourse.

Which part of the previous paragraph do you disagree with?

> 
> craig
> 
> -- 
> craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 


-- 
Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel: +61 2 4782 2670            Mobile: +61 427 486 206
Fax: +61 2 4782 7092            FWD: 615662