# \[e-drug\] The perils of free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** e-drug\ **Created:** [December 10, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-the-perils-of-free-speech/18389 "2003-12-10T16:15:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![myhr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f07891/32.png) [@myhr](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/myhr)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-the-perils-of-free-speech/18389/1 "2003-12-10T16:15:03Z")
E-drug: The perils of free speech ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, the E-drug moderators received comments on the quality of some of the article abstracts, newspaper cuttings or newsletters from information centres that we post. It was felt we should 'peer-review' (censor) them before posting. The moderators did not agree and decided to continue posting material on subjects we find may be of interest to our subscribers. Sometimes we do comment on the postings ourselves and encourage E-druggers to respond, but we do not always have the time or expertise to do so. Of course newspapers may be biased, and studies that are published may always be criticised and may have flaws in methodology and statistical analysis even if they have been peer-reviewed and appear in journals regarded as leading. Opinion will always differ even between experts. We feel therefore, that we cannot be censors, but leave it to our E-druggers to be alert and critical and not swallow everything they read even if posted on E-drug! We do encourage you to comment on such postings, this is the most fruitful solution - we think. In BMJ 5 December we find some support for this decision to encourage free speech in the editor Richard Smiths' column Editor's choice (copied below) titled The perils of free speech. BMJ 327, 6 December 2003 Editor's choice The perils of free speech An enthusiasm for free speech can lead you into strange company. For the past two weeks I've been receiving a stream of emails from "AIDS deniers" (those who are sceptical of the connection between HIV and AIDS) praising me for my love of debate. The praise follows an article in Nature (20 November, p 215) in which AIDS researchers criticised the BMJ for allowing "AIDS deniers" to post dozens of rapid responses on our website. If you search on bmj.com for material on AIDS then much of what you will discover questions the connection between HIV and AIDS. (If, however, you search "articles only," which excludes rapid responses, you'll find little such material.) On Friday I opened the Times (28 November, p 31) and discover that I'm quoted with approval by Lord Harris of High Cross, a former chairman of Forest, the "voice and friend of the smoker." The quote came in response to the fury that followed our publishing research on passive smoking funded by the tobacco industry. "We must," I wrote, "be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." Reading the quote on a Forest advertisement tightens my anus, but I wrote it and can't deny it. If you can tell a man by the company he keeps, then I'm going off the public health rails. But why? It's because of the deep commitment of the BMJ to unfettered debate. Those who read our rapid responses will find strange beasts, contorted prose, and rank nonsense. But the babblings of fools and lunatics are not always easy to distinguish from the mutterings of genius. When taken to task over some of the rubbish we post as rapid responses I always resort to Milton because of his beautiful writing and clarity of argument: "Give me," he wrote, "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter... It is not impossible that she [truth] may have more shapes than one... If it come to prohibiting, there is not ought more likely to be prohibited than truth itself, whose first appearance to our eyes bleared and dimmed with prejudice and custom is more unsightly and implausible than many errors... Where there is much desire to learn there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making." The most practical argument for free speech comes from the Nobel laureate Amatya Sen, the author of our first editorial (p 1297). He has pointed out that famine does not occur in countries with a free press. This is because famine is a problem of distribution not of absolute lack of food. A free press will create such clamour that a government has to act. The greater value of free speech outweighs the discomfort of foolish thinking. Richard Smith, editor rsmith@bmj.com Comments are welcome also to this posting! Kirsten Myhr, MScPharm, MPH Head, RELIS Ost Drug Information Centre Ulleval University Hospital 0407 OSLO, Norway Tel: +47 23 01 64 11 Fax: +47 23 01 64 10 myhr@online.no www.relis.no -- To send a message to E-Drug, write to: e-drug@healthnet.org To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@healthnet.org in the body of the message type: subscribe e-drug OR unsubscribe e-drug To contact a person, send a message to: e-drug-help@healthnet.org Information and archives: [http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug](http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug)