I recently made use of the very public feedback form that Charles Sturt University placed on Clive Hamilton’s public bio. My request that other academics review his public commentary has been taken by Mr Hamilton as an attempt to silence him.

Round 1

I can’t help but feel that poor Clive has to respond to comments like mine on a regular basis. There are a lot of people out there that aren’t in awe of his academic reputation and take this debate seriously enough to call him out on it. Here’s my original feedback submission to CSU:

While Clive Hamilton is obviously a greatly respectable academic  there really needs to be more peer review of his media commentary  he gets away with too much inaccuracy [sic].

Along with this submission I included my full name, email address and personal telephone number.

His response is a classis.

Dear Mr Salsone

The University has forwarded your complaint to me. I find it astonishing that someone who purports to defend freedom of expression on the internet should complain to my employer with the objective of pressuring them to silence me.

It’s called hypocrisy.

No Clive, it’s called accountability. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be paid for innacuracy and tabloid sensationalism. Speak your mind Clive, just be willing for others to speak their mind about your opinion. Be willing to be proven wrong.

Given that I’m not exactly your average forum whoring net-kiddy opposing the filter so that I can watch porn, I didn’t immediately fold under Clive’s dire gaze. My response:

Dear Mr Hamilton,

I’m not even remotely surprised that you didn’t read the complaint properly, so I’ll explain it in more simple terms.

My recommendation to your employer was that your academic peers review your public comments with the same eye to accuracy and precision that they would with your academic work. I have intense respect for you as an academic, however, your public commentary on this debate lacks rigour and accountability.

I think you fail to realise that the pursuaiveness of your reputation blurs the reality of what you say. Our side of the debate has a much higher demand for proof as we lack the instant recognition that your reputation affords you.

If you feel that peer review of your public commentary is the same as silencing you, then perhaps you should lift your game when you write articles in the mainstream media.

It may come as a surprise to you that my primary concern in this debate is the protection of children. Finite resources, however, demand that the money we spend on protecting children be done in the most effective way possible. This filter is not the most effective plan, not by a long shot. If you’d read my blog a few months ago you would know that I originally came into this debate supporting the filter. I have since been willing to admit that I was wrong and have since changed my position.

I take it by the lack of any text to the contrary in the footer of your email that I can post this to my blog. Free speech being what it is, I’ll let my readership decide if my original comment was a bid to silence you or a bid to have you lift your game.

Clive, you and I both know that my comment was never a request to silence you, please stop jumping at shadows. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Sincerest Regards

Kieran Salsone

I pose the question to you all, was I too forward in my comment? Was I pressuring for him to be silenced?

If the overwhelming consensus is that I was out of line, I will happily write an apology and send a retraction of my submission to the University.

If not, then I ask that Clive explain to me exactly how he read my suggestion of peer review as an attempt at suppression.

Round 2 **update**

Clive didn’t waste a whole lot of time responding to my original email:

.. and should your articles and posts be subject to peer review too? Just to ensure their accuracy and precision, of course. Perhaps we could run them through the Central Committee for Truth on the Internet. But, no, that would not work, because you chair that Committee and it would be quite improper for you to review your own work.

What a load of dissemblish tosh your response to me is. You urged someone whom you think can exercise power over me to impose some form of restriction on what I say, and you claim that you were innocently suggesting ‘peer review’.
“I have intense respect for you as an academic” — yes, of course you do, as long as I say things you agree with.
I am just amazed at your pompous dishonesty and your contempt for freedom of expression. A bit of self-examination would go a long way.

Feel free to post this too.

CH

Well, this was my response:

Dear Clive,

My articles are reviewed by my peers Clive, and they have every opportunity to speak up about them. When I’m called out about accuracy problems I change my original post. Would you be willing to do that?

If you are going to trade on your reputation as an academic, then treat that commentary like you would an academic. I don’t presume to base my opinions on reputation, I base them on the facts as they are presented. Where I am wrong, I capitulate.

I would be more than happy to have every single one of my blog posts reviewed by academics. If you don’t believe me then please, find an academic willing to review my work and I will submit it to them for review.

Once again I ask why you are so afraid of peer review and why, if you are so certain of your opinion, you feel that peer review would restrict what you say?

Thank you for your views about my stance on freedom of speech, I’d be more than happy to keep an open dialogue between us so that we can discuss it more fully. It’s a topic that I find to be complicated and troublesome.

I’m looking forward to hearing from you again, perhaps with less vitriol next time.

Regards,

Kieran

Look, before the accusation comes, I’m not trying to be condescending or overly nice. I’m seriously trying to hold back the kind of invective that will get me in trouble.

Round 3 **update***

Clive’s response to the above:

I wrote: “You urged someone whom you think can exercise power over me to impose some form of restriction on what I say, and you claim that you were innocently suggesting ‘peer review’.”

It’s clear you do find the concept of freedom of speech troublesome, as you don’t respond. An apology would do.

CH

The second comment about me not responding to the first comment is fair, so I stepped up.

Dear Clive,

I didn’t respond to that part of your email because it was attempting to provoke a harsh response.

My response is this: I urged someone who gives you credibility through their sponsorship of you as an academic to ensure that you are not abusing that credibility. I can understand why you would feel pressured by this but it’s the tradeoff you make for being a published academic.

If you had nothing to fear from peer review, you would not have been so affronted by my recommendation.

That being said, I do apologise that you feel slighted by my recommendation. In the future I will attempt to be more clear. I regret going straight to your employer but only because I didn’t go to you first. I apologise for not going to you first. I also apologise for not responding to every one of your points when you made them. I did, however, leave the door open for further discussion.

I find freedom of speech to be complicated and troublesome, I admit that. I pursue it regardless.

Now, tell me and tell everyone who will read this why you are so afraid of peer review.

Regards,
Kieran