The item was a compelling defense of free speech and conscience. Except for items specifically mentioned in the party platform on which the member was elected a member of parliament should be free to follow dictates of conscience, the wishes of his or her electoral district and what she or he perceives to be the good of Australia and the world.

Free speech may be offensive. The right to say what offends nobody reduces free speech to, "Have a nice day."

Well, have a nice day, is offensive speech to some, determined to be offended!
As is, for some, hows the weather up there; or, you have a very good looking Missus!
There has to be a pragmatic line drawn somewhere, and it should be based around traditional Australian social mores, not the views of the new chums, who simply don't know us, or our culture or customs.
Not all that long ago, I could have been called a f@#*+G bastard.
Not because I was one, but because the smiling speaker admired my grit?
If truly free speech no longer includes a very legitimize right to offend the precious, what's left?

I say old boy!
Pull your flamin head in you offensive git, I'm not old, nor am a I a boy, you offense swilling swine!
Or, jolly nice cup of tea what?
Keep your flamin tea you British imperialist!
It's just too easy too offend those who just don't have a legitimate bitch, and are just offended by the space we occupy!
Or our white/black skin/in the wrong flamin lane, and the list is almost flamin endless.
I mean, and for heaven's sake, simply holding politicians to account, in robust parliamentary par for the course language, could be seen as offensive!
It's time we stopped catering to patent control freaks, and just amended 18c, ever so slightly, so we retain the right, inherent in truly free speech, to unintentionally offend or deride!
Please forgive if I offended with these comments Effendi!
Rhrosty.

Max doesn't seem to realise there is a good reason most, [well the intelligent ones], vote for parties, rather than individuals or independents.

That way we have a better idea of what we are getting. We have seen enough recently to prove voting for an independent is more likely to give you a policy you don't want than anything else.

It usually controls the crazies that somehow get into parties, like Tanya Plibersek and Harry Quick, from forcing foolish decisions because the system can give the balance of power to them.

I know you would prefer a government that ignores the will of the people, & as with many academics, you are sure you know best. Thank god you don't get hold of the reins.

..Without party "Loyalty" and "Discipline" who would vote for a "Rabble": Not many, as evinced by diminished support for the Labor rabble!

...And, this author could not resist offering as example of bucking party discipline; a free vote for "Homosexual coupling"...How sad!

A few points:

Was Menzies supporting 'free speech' and 'free association' when he attempted to have the Communist Party banned?

And while people are talking about J.S.Mill it should be noted that Mill (the younger) had strong sympathies with the socialist Robert Owen.

Also while we're talking about free speech and other liberties - what do people think of the Victorian Liberals' attempts to uproot freedom of assembly? It begs the question: 'what next'?

And when one reads the pages of the Herald-Sun it seems there are constant attempts to rationalise 'the heavy hand of government' - whipping up hysteria against even moderate civil disobedience.

Political liberals and compassionate conservatives 'get real' about the direction of the Liberal Party!

Finally: There are arguments for uncompromising, US-style free-speech provisions - and even on the Left there is the question "what is anti-free speech provisions are used against us' one day?

Ethically I agree free speech is not an 'absolute right' if it leads to the rationalisation or denial of the Holocaust', or 'hate speech' which is harmful to individuals and groups - including the most marginal or vulnerable.

But there is an argument for 'uncompromising', 'US-style' free speech in that if it is taken as an 'absolute' it is harder for authoritarians of any persuasion to uproot.

But if the Libs are going to take this stance PLS at least be consistent when it comes to free assembly, association etc!

Tristan I realise you are only a bit of a kid, & did not live it, but that is no excuse for you to use as example things you have not studied adequately.

I will assume it is that you don't understand the situation in Menzies time, rather than approve of the communist party of the day's actions as fifth columnists. I do assume you are a patriotic Ozzie, which could never be said of the 40s & 50s communists in Oz.