No, he said, scientists -- they are the ones to decide what is true and what is untrue. And then the truth may be spoken out loud or put in writing. And, presumably, that which is untrue will be prohibited from being spoken.
How agreeable it would be if only things were so easy. I see in Wednesday's paper a report of the unhappy end for four pigs in the Bears Lagoon Piggery. The RSPCA found the pigs in such a sorry condition that they killed them to end their misery. The Action Animal Rescue Team wants us to boycott Castlemaine Bacon products because, they say, that company gets some of its pig meat from Bears Lagoon Piggery.
No doubt both sides in the argument can produce veterinary scientists to support their case. On the one hand there will be those who will swear that pigs love the company of other pigs and the more you can squeeze into a pen the merrier.
On the other hand, there will be scientists who will argue that it is of the piggy essence to be out and about snuffling in the dirt for things to eat; and that the porker is not fulfilling his piggy destiny unless he is set free. Which scientist will we believe? And, similarly, some scientists will say logging causes species extinction and others will claim that possums love a good chase. Which will we believe?
Each environmental-cum-ethical dispute in our society -- intensive farming, animal slaughtering, cars versus trains, smoking, tuna fishing, whaling, mining, global warming is a case of assertion against assertion. The tobacco industry can even produce scientists who will swear that smoking is not only not harmful but is positively beneficial.
However, we do not want to get too hung up on the obvious stupidity of the scientific-truth test. Those who cherish and defend free speech do not require that the speech they are defending be true or even polite or nice. The most famous demonstration in support of free speech was made by the American Civil Liberties Union when they defended the right of Nazis to parade through a predominantly Jewish section of an American city. The ACLU had no sympathy with the Nazis nor their message of hate, but they were prepared to stand up for the right of people to say things that are not just untrue but positively wicked. Freedom abused is certainly shocking, but the alternative is more appalling.
Back in 1992, Dr Robert Bain wrote to The Age complaining about a ban that had been placed on National Association of Forest Industries' television advertisements. It happened during an election campaign in Tasmania. Dr Bain claimed the advertisements were "apolitical" and factual.
Nothing that anyone says about forestry practices in Tasmania is apolitical -- but that is beside the point. NAFI should have been allowed to run the ads. Believers in free speech would have supported Dr Bain in his complaint. But we would have departed from him in the sentence where he says, "Free public access to factual information is a cornerstone of democracy''.
No. Free public access to information is a cornerstone of democracy. You may not qualify it with the word ''factual''. We either permit people to say what they "believe" to be true or we appoint;a Grand Censor to license everything that is permitted to be said and to ban that which is not.
The future of our forests is a matter of public argument. It is dividing the political parties into pro and anti-woodchip factions. People hold sincere positions on both sides of the argument. They all have a right to put their propaganda before the undecided public. Things will be said on both sides that are untrue or unprovable. There may be good and bad motives on both sides. It is of no consequence. In a civilised society error has rights precisely because "time makes ancient good uncouth".
And Dr Bain should keep in mind that when a powerful organisation stomps
on a little greenie from the bush we are entitled to suspect tht the little
greenie might be onto something that Dr Bain and his friends would rather
we didn't know about - and surely that can't be so?