Hi CJ, I think the issue is that racist hate speech has a proven impact upon the people who read it in that it causes psychological harm to its victims. That is why we have laws in place to regulate racist hate speech.

I would agree that minor racist speech can be tolerated. But when its at this level, and it is clearly unlawful under the RDA and the ADA, then it shouldn't be here. And if we say nothing its almost like agreeing with it - because somebody will read it and be severely hurt by it - and we wont have done anything.

David, if I thought the posts were illegal I would have taken them down. Even if I were to take your point that it might be prima facie illegal, the Racial Discrimination Act allows for discussion of racist material, which is what we are doing.

If I were an Indian reading this thread I'd actually be reassured that the vast bulk of Australians is not racist.

But we should all be aware that there are people who are racist. These people deserve to be themselves treated with dignity, whatever you think of some of their views. When you try to suppress their ability to discuss their views you create space for the next round of Hansonism to grow.

With respect Graham, the posts may fail under Part IIA of the RDA.

Section 18C(1)(a) requires that the conduct be reasonably likely to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate others. In Creek v Cairns Post, Justice Keifel said that this related to serious and not mere slights. But in Creek the publication of two photos side by side, one showing a white couple at a house and the other showing an Aboriginal woman at a tribal event, was held to be offensive. Similarly, in McGlade v Lightfoot, Justice Carr held that comments of Senator Lightfoot that the Aborigines are primitives etc offended under the sub-section. Given the some of the remarks made here are more offensive I think it likely that the offensiveness threshold would be satisfied.

The causation requirement in s 18C(1)(b) requires that the conduct be done because of the victim’s race. Jay has been at pains to point out the difference between non-whites and white, plus the dangers of Indians taking the jobs of whites. Given the way in which similar material was dealt with by the Federal Court in Silberberg, Toben and McGlade, the causation requirement would likely be satisfied.

The section 18D defence protects speech made reasonably and in good faith. Given the discussion of these terms by Justice French in Bropho I doubt the defence applies. Reasonably requires an examination of context – here Jay is seeking to get support for a very extremist view. Good faith requires honesty of action and an attempt to minimize harm. Jay has spoken of a “final solution to the black problem.” He has made offensive remarks about Indians and spoken of an anti-white genocide. This isn’t the type of speech that is likely to be regarded as being in good faith. A defendant under 18D must prove both elements

On balance the posts are likely to fail under Part IIA. But that’s just my opinion.

In the Silberberg decision a web forum was found not to be liable under Part IIA whilst the person who posted the racist remarks was held to be liable. The problem was that the complainant could not prove causation under s 18C(1)(b) in relation to the forum’s failure to remove a racist posting. So OLO would have nothing to worry about. But really it’s a technicality. When s 18C(1)(b) was drafted in 1994 the internet wasn’t a big thing and web forums didn’t exist. So there wasn’t much thought given to secondary liability.

I don’t agree that suppressing hate speech will lead to another Hanson. Allowing it to exist will let it flourish and escalate. I support free speech too – but hate speech isn’t legitimate democratic expression – its just abuse and intimidation.

I think you have to consider the sentiments of both the people who have posted here as well as the people who haven’t posted here. I’m not entirely sure how an Indian would take comfort out of this thread given that the extremist views are still being disseminated

Thanks for your legal opinion David. I disagree. The thread has to be taken as a whole.

OK so I should, in David's opinion, go to jail for up to 14 years for insulting other White people.
Read my posts again VERY carefully, remembering that they appeared in sequence and I've already advised that they are tactics, part of a well rehearsed sequence to convey a particular point of view.
Read where I state categorically that Non White people are not my enemy.
Now I've stated also that I've worked extensively with Indians so I have, unlike you guys apparently, a pretty clear idea of how they might respond, given that they are normal people and not, in my view overly given to hysterical outbursts.
To the 5 to 1 quip I'd expect to receive a reply along the lines of
"Well it's lucky there's one billion of us then".
You guys are putting a whole series of layers and selective interpretations on my posts in order to shut me up because they offend YOUR sensibilities, any effect on others is pure speculation on your part.
I'm attacking you because I don't agree that assimilation is the best thing for White people and you guys can't cope with what I'm saying.