"supporters of an unfettered right of expression do not accept that there are absolute core values that must be protected in a multicultural society"

By Manny, many of those who would support your arguments are completely opposed to Australia remaining a multicultural society.

Great article - freedom of speech is not absolute and is restricted by the harm and offense principles. The posts above seem to be full of hot air, feel good, Voltaire wannabes, mindlessly repeating the non-quote of the Voltaire-mantra without any understanding. Living in a world of moral equivalence is probably easier, don't have to think too hard as evidenced from the above, but leads to anarchy. But then again, that's probably what these posters want.

Irfan, define multiculturalism. If it's a community of multiple tribes with different laws, social values, morals and ethics accountable only to themselves - which is where we are heading, then yes, many of the people who agree with this article will also be against multiculturalism. If it's a single community made of up people from various cultures living under one legal system, social value, morality and ethics accountable to the whole community, maintaining the flavour of the culture and throwing out the 'bones', then, no, most agreeing with this article would support this type of multiculturalism. The latter is how multiculturalism started and gained popularity; the former is developing now and causing problems.

Personally, I think that if we don't extend freedom of speech even to people with obnoxious views, even possibly to advocating violence, then we don't have free speech at all. That extends equally to islamo-fascist jihadists and obnoxious rightwing shock jocks.

Irfan, I'm intrigued. In a recent article you argued that:

"(Alan) Jones didn't have to read offensive and racist emails on air. He didn't have to mention bikie gangs gathering at railway stations. If anything, Jones and 2GB got off lightly. They should cop the effects of the law, just like the rest of us do."

Would you say that Jones' advocacy of violence should be illegal, but but Feiz Mohammed’s should not?

The harm principle and the offense principle. If you're going to argue the harm principle, you have to argue the harm, AND compare it to the harm of censorship. Manny does not do this.

As for the offense principle, responding to "offense" by censorship is simply being precious.

Let's not confuse the freedom of expressing one's opinion with the right to incite violence in the name of one's opinion.

Yes, we should all be free to express our opinions. But inciting others to take up arms or commit acts of violence has nothing to do with expressing an opinion. It's an act of violence and it should be prohibited as such.

Opinions and discourse promoting hatred should not be allowed to be expressed publicly either.

It's way too easy nowadays to broadcast one's opinion to the entire world (ref. this very Forum!).

We, as a 'civilised' society, should never tolerate anyone broadcasting calls to violence or hatred in any way, shape or form.

Just for Chrissie, here's a few quotes from Voltaire.

. Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

. Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

. The secret of being boring is to say everything, and my favourite (half right),

. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

I agree man invented the deity but the other bit, no.

Any of these apply to your own views Chrissie?