To The Australian Matthew Lesh is right ("Costly clamps on free speech", 3/7) that, to maintain and enhance intellectual freedom in our universities (and elsewhere), "the challenge is fostering a culture open to a diversity of ideas." However, he exaggerates in claiming that "almost everyone tends to think the same way." The censoring of certain viewpoints (such as right wing conservatism and universalist approaches to the sacred) happens as a result of fixed prejudices (scientific rationalism, old-time religion) and lobbying by very powerful political elites or groups of ideological extremists. Regrettably, misuse of the legal system to checkmate dissident views already occurs to a considerable degree. It's a pity that Ian Jacobs did not address this in his comment ("Speech code may have unintended consequences", 3/7). He should know that the fact that speech is "likely to be unlawful" is not at all always "a sound and acceptable rationale for limiting freedom of speech." Some of the "discrimination and vilification laws" to which he refers unjustly inhibit open inquiry.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic