If you punish people for saying abusive things in public, then they will say them in private, with increased vehemence because of their rightful resentment about being muzzled. Let them speak in public and their claims can be heard, analysed and dealt with in detail. The way to stop discrimination and hate speech is through education and exposure, not suppressing it and pretending it doesn't happen.

It's always best to have the enemies of an open society out in the open themselves.

"It is difficult to disagree with the proposition that a liberal democracy requires a high degree of free speech. Yet, what is doesn't require is an unbridled amount of free speech."

Garbage; complete and utter garbage; because anything less is censorship which is the act of one person or group of people saying they are better than others and can decide what the inferior group can see, read and hear.

Does the author understand that point and the irony of someone arguing for limitations on free speech on the basis that free speech allows inferior relationships to be maintained, when their solution is to create another inferior relationship?!

This is just another handwringing support of Finkelstein and the Bolt decision; the author says this about Bolt:

"The problem is that because Bolt got facts wrong and exaggerated he could not get the benefit of the free speech exemption. If you exaggerate and get basic facts wrong then it's quite hard to make out that you are acting "reasonably" and in "good faith". Yet, his case does illustrate the problem with the low threshold in s 18C of Part IIA of the RDA."

The issue was not Bolt's mistake about facts but that he mixed the right to claim aboriginality with the further right to claim benefits based on that claim of aboriginality. Bolt and the issue of 'mistaken facts' is discussed at another OLO thread here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13157&page=5

The problem is racism. Vilification is merely a symptom. If racism were restricted to fringe groups of our society it would not be a problem. Racism is a problem because respectable bank managers may be reluctant to make housing loans to individuals of less favoured groups, because respectable personnel managers are reluctant to hire individuals of less favoured groups and because respectable church people may be reluctant to accept individuals of less favoured groups in their congregations. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody showed racism is a problem because police throw frightened Aboriginal youths in cells and either bash them or don't monitor them. Vilification legislation doesn’t touch that sort of racism.

The USSR, Yugoslavia and East Germany all had racial vilification legislation. This legislation promoted racism in at least two ways. The first way was to hide the cancer of racism from public view. It was not discussed and dealt with. The USSR had the antisemitic heritage of Imperial Russia, Yugoslavia had the fascist heritage of the Ustache who massacred Jews and Serbs during World War 2, and East Germany had a Nazi heritage. Legal suppression of these antisocial tendencies possibly helped keep them alive. The horrible process of ethnic cleansing went in the various successor states to Yugoslavia. Skinheads riot and desecrate the remains of holocaust victims in Germany. The cancer gains renewed life under suppression.

Of course, one may contend that the experience of Slavic countries or of Germany is not relevant to that of English speaking countries. The evidence does not bear this contention out. Australia has a heritage of "White Australia" and the destruction of the Aborigines. Australia was less hospitable than Japan to Jews fleeing from the Nazi Holocaust. Japan took in 27,000. Australia took in 9,000. If the vilification of Australia above had been given enough prominence, the conscience of Australia's people might have been aroused, and Australians might not have allowed their government to refuse sanctuary to Cambodian boat people in much the same manner as sanctuary was refused to those in danger from the Nazis.

Repeal all antivilification legislation.

Hiding the more extreme racism from public view is actually a GOOD thing.

Extreme racists will not be convinced by arguments in public and will not be deterred by public humiliation. Quite the opposite -- they thrive on the idea that they are being "persecuted for speaking the truth".

What racial vilification laws do is at least make it easier for racial groups to participate in public life without fear of racist abuse and violence.

If racist keep their views between themselves, no one gets hurt. If they proclaim them in public and society deems that acceptable, give or take some criticism, they receive a message that it is ok to be racist. That message can spread and creates an environment in which racist violence becomes something that is acceptable. It all stems from public displays of racism.

NQD wrote: "What racial vilification laws do is at least make it easier for racial groups to participate in public life without fear of racist abuse and violence."

The above is not true. Violence against the person, racist or otherwise, is a crime. Racial vilification laws have nothing to do with stopping that. Unfortunately the police are often guilty of that type of violence. "Racist Violence" by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commision investigated the subject and found in many instances police were the perpetrators. It is a problem which racial vilification laws do nothing to stop.

Racial vilification laws shut people up from saying what some define as loathsome remarks concerning race. I have strong opinions. Some people find my opinions loathsome, but I want the freedom to express them. The freedom to say what no one finds loathsome exists in the most abject tyranny. Free speech must allow speech that some find loathsome, or we do not have free speech.

Speech which will incite a mob to attack a person or persons is already illegal as it is incitement. Incitement and harassment are crimes under common law.

Repeal all vilification legislation

This article can be summed up in one sentence: White people need to be stopped in having opinions about non-white people, while non-whites need to be given greater freedom in criticizing whites.