These reasonable climate change opinions could be silenced if the Human Rights Commission outlaws 'm

[rangerrebew]

Insights And Analysis

These reasonable climate change opinions could be silenced if the Human Rights Commission outlaws 'misinformation'
The powerful Australian Human Rights Commission is the latest in a long list of climate change preachers that believe you and I are too stupid to figure out what misinformation is, writes James Bolt.
 
Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell has analysed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s address to the UN…
Let’s ask the age-old question on freedom of speech: who do you trust with the power to tell you what you can read, hear and think?

More specifically - who do you trust with that power over what you can read, hear and think on climate change policy?

I can’t think of anyone, and certainly wouldn’t offer the Labor government or the Australian Human Rights Commission as potential candidates.

But soon it might not be my choice to make, considering what the latter organisation has said this week.

The AHRC in a Senate submission said “regulation is necessary” to stop “misinformation” and “false narratives” about climate change being spread.

https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/these-reasonable-climate-change-opinions-could-be-silenced-if-the-human-rights-commission-outlaws-misinformation/news-story/6de9f7e7f896d5ba0bce97dd919e515a

[Smokin Joe]

Following science is on the verge of getting harder. If scientific conclusions are decreed by politicians and others with skin in the scam, science will inevitably take a back seat.

This is simply not how science is done.

Results of research may be unpopular, but facts are tenacious things.
The real world doesn't care who it offends by simply existing.
Yet another attempt to legally hammer scientific dissent just proves the lies about consensus were false, and that the positions taken by those who propose such measures cannot withstand scrutiny.