Update on Ridd Case

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, when you argue your position, it's legitimate debate; but when another argues her alternate position, it's shutting down debate.
And, when you go over the CF's "be nice" line, any Moderation would be undue censure.

I would consider firing the people who argue alternate position "shutting down debate".

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I would consider firing the people who argue alternate position "shutting down debate".

As would I. I'm not afraid of another's opinion or position on anything, whether I agree with it or not, and I need no one else to protect me from it.

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I would consider firing the people who argue alternate position "shutting down debate".

As the High Court just ruled, Ridd was fired for technical breaches of his employment agreement, not for his arguing an alternate position. Read the case; it's pretty interesting. Ridd or his legal team apparently made some choices in their appeal that were a gamble, and they lost that gamble.

The court did acknowledge that JCUs initial censure of Ridd was not proper, and it's now been acknowledged by Australian universities that they must uphold the rights of academic freedom.

The debate continues...

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by court ruling via jimbunyard

"... intellectual freedom should be qualified (i) by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy to others in the expression of issues and ideas in one's field of competence ..."

If I were his lawyer, I would have argued that climate is not his field of competence, and therefore he was not technically required to afford anyone respect and courtesy in his expressions appertaining thereunto.


... That's probably why I'm not a lawyer.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

No. It is incorrect to imply that expertise in Physics confers expertise in climate science. That is just dead wrong.

Nope, if it's about heat flows into and from the atmosphere it's physics and the rest of it is just a flossy dressing.