Politics, literature and dangers of censorship to a vibrant democracy

Censoring the Hunter Biden story (“Censoring the story of Hunter Biden’s emails will only serve to help Trump”, 26/10) may or may not help Trump. But surely the bigger picture is far more significant. The censorship of the New York Post by Facebook and Twitter is an ominous warning of the “brave new world” we are entering — a world in which information is controlled by a faceless “big tech” with its ideological roots firmly planted in the green-left.

Their undeclared bias and subsequent protection of the favoured candidate, persecution of the other and promotion of selected views on current issues is chilling — especially given how quickly they have become the major source of news for so many.

This issue is bigger than Trump v Biden. It’s about informed citizens and the future of democracy. As it silently manages the information, kills debate and engineers our beliefs to fit the new gospel of the green-left, Big Tech is proving to be an insidious enemy of freedom of speech.

Jane Bieger, Brisbane, Qld

The growing trend by book publishers to censor what authors may, or may not, write should concern every person worried about erosion of freedoms (“A truth stranger than fiction”, 26/10). The issue of whether authors should be “allowed” to create characters who aren’t like themselves clarifies both the absurdity and the dangers of this modern day book burning. Under that principle, many books by the greatest authors through the ages, including Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Swift, and Orwell would be out of bounds.

Censorship in numerous forms is being thrust upon us under the cloak of nefarious “rights” including a so-called “right” not to be offended. In the process, individual freedoms are being slowly, but inexorably, suffocated. Our modern day Puritans would be well advised to read one of Orwell’s finest works, written from the perspective of farmyard animals and pigs. A more “culturally inappropriate” perspective is difficult to imagine, but the message is crystal clear, as is his premise from 1984. 1984 is intended to be a novel, not a manual.

John McLeod, Sunshine Coast, Qld

Down to a science

Scientists use various methods to study aspects of coral reefs. In her opinion piece, (“Scientists all at sea with alarmist barrier reef warning”, 24-25/10) Dr Jennifer Marohasy mentions a few. In the scientific study discussed, the JCU researchers used an appropriate standard method to focus on a very specific question (the colony size structure of coral populations and how it changed between two time points about 20 years apart).

Marohasy also discusses coral calcification measurements from Porites coral cores and makes erroneous claims about the collection of coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. AIMS continues to collect and measure coral cores from the reef for specific research questions. AIMS has also been monitoring coral cover across the Reef using another “well-established technique” for the past 35 years. Our most recent reef condition report using “tried and proven methods” was published in August. It shows a long-term decline in coral cover over the period. These data are publicly available.

Dr Britta Schaffelke, Research Program Director Great Barrier Reef, Australian Institute of Marine Science

Pensioner problem

Annastacia Palaszczuk’s grateful pensioners (“Pensioners’ swayed by Premier’s grit”, 26/10) should take a long hard look at themselves. Surely they could have been quite capable of “saving” themselves, rather than endorsing the wholesale slaughter of the Queensland economy. The full effects of this economic damage will impact upon their children and grandchildren in the years ahead.

Crispin Walters, Chapel Hill, Qld