ozaware, First I am assuming that Morgan is a he (sorry if I've got that wrong but the semantics of he/she get to messy).

- I personally think it harms the value of forums such as this if the law (or the threat of the law) is used to stifle free speech (even if that free speech is a slur). Whilst morgan is making a specific attempt to incite you there are other threads where open discussion has great opportunity to offend some (almost any discussion on religion).
- I think that morgans willingness to name call other contributers gives a fairly good indication of how seriously he takes concepts such as "showing respect regardless of creed" which he talks about. Fairminded readers will see that for themselves, others will not be convinced by anything you have to say anyway.
- It is your choice to make yourself identifable to readers. Should you be treated differently from other users because you have made that choice?

It is already clear from morgan's approach to debate that he thinks his right to free speech is more important than other considerations (doing a great job of showing he does not agree with the non racial aspects of Hagan's article). I would prefer to let him name call, the harm is more to his reputation than mine.

I agree with morgans comments in an earlier post
>> Perhaps people could start showing each other respect in their
>> daily lives, regardless of creed or colour. I don't suppose
>> there'd be much use for words like "nigger" then.
I do find it difficult to reconcile being called a "racist" and "dumb" with the above, I guess that is one for morgan to work out and others to consider when they decide how much weight to give morgans posts.

as an aboriginal person i agree in essence with what hagan is saying but in application to the real world the approach doesn't really fit and only feeds the arguments of non-aboriginal people about playing a victim role.

in observing australian society i see that many ethnic people simply ignore racist drivel and get on with their lives - better to hurt with economic sway than to show your feelings are hurt.

the other alternative is to play tit for tat, you call me blacky, i call you whitey etc, etc.

with regard to the word nigger, seems to me that many negro people refer to each other as nigger in the sense that they've taken back ownership of the word. once they own it, the white people can't hurt em with it. i think the same of the word gin, many aboriginal people use the word as a term of endearment, but if used by a white person then its a different matter. same as the word wog for ethnic people, its ok for them call each other it but when others do its a different matter.

at the end of the day there is really no need for racial vilification and depending on the circumstances there are legal avenues that can be pursued to make that point. failing that there's always the option of aggression to put people in their place or of course the choice of spending your bucks somewhere where the colour of your money is the only thing that counts.

I too agree with Hagan's article.
The problem is - taunts of 'nigger' or 'black' are both racial slurs and freedom of speech. It all depends on whether you are the caller or the receiver of the taunt !!

As an Aboriginal person, I have had my share of taunts, as have others from other nationalities - it is not the domain of one group of people to be called names. Greeks, italians, japanese, chinese, and vietnamese have also suffered from name calling.

But Hagan's article was really about the values society holds (or doesn't), and the reflection of that society when name calling as a slur, based on a persons colour, religion or whatever, becomes so commonplace that it becomes an acceptable form.

Being acceptable does not make it right