clownfish "'What's wrong with being offended?" exactly, as Rhys Jo9nes says, it is not very nice, but should not be illegal.

There is a culture now of tolerance to the intolerant, people can now demand censorship, because of their "offended" feelings.

I'm constantly offended by things around me, but do not come from a culture that is intolerant, what has happened to the minority groups in Australia is the offense they feel, is now used to bash anyone they please, into silence.

Is that what we want?

Some countries, like France and the Netherlands have realize how far down those paths they went and are reversing, there will be blood shed, in the Netherlands already, from the intolerant.

This is non trivial, and we may have to come to bloodshed here to reclaim from the whining left, our right to free speech, because it is going out the window.

Dear Mr McReal, at least I am prepared to defend my views through reasoned argument and critical analysis, while you apparently think that submitting sneery one liners is the epitamy of intellectual achievement.

What basis in reason do you have in your premise that "all men (persons) are equal", other than that you were inculcated in school to believe this holy premise, and it is now the sacred infallible doctrine that all must believe in?

LEGO,
Though all persons are equal before God and the Law they are not equal in intellect and ability. However they all equally serve a purpose in community, though the purpose is not equal in remuneration.

Freedom of speech is a safeguard against unjust rule. People should be free to criticize the laws of their community and the policies of their government. A government is less likely to impose unjust laws on people who can openly criticize its decisions. Without freedom of speech, people cannot have complete political freedom. In a democracy, freedom of speech is a necessity.

Having said that however, I would like to add that people who enjoy the rights of free speech also have a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others, for example their right to maintain their good reputation and their right to privacy. Most societies put various limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they believe might harm the government or the people. But drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech can be extremely difficult.

However, most democratic countries have certain laws and restrictions on free expression. Laws covering things like libel and slander. Laws against urging violence prohibit speech that endangers life and so on.

The development of freedom of speech in most Western countries has been brought about through the growth of democratic government based on the rule of law because it has been determined that this is the best political and social policy. This is what most people need and want. It's what works best in a civilized society for the equal benefit of all.

"These laws clearly serve a useful purpose."

Yes, stifling debate about immigration and multiculturalism.

I really can't believe any sane person can defend these laws.
Violence?
If words lead to violence, you arrest the person being violent.
If words don't lead to violence, they're just words.

You are not criminalising violence. That was *already* illegal.
You are criminalising *words*.

If there are consequences to words, then address the consequences.
If there are no consequences, there's nothing to address.

And including Bolt's statements about pseudo-Aborigines under the name "hate speech"?
Unbelievable!

"In a liberal democracy people have a right to be free from racism."
No, you do not.
I am so sick of people claiming that some ideological *preference* of theirs is a "right".

We are living through a New Inquisition.
The heretics are "racists".
And just like the original Inquisition, it doesn't really matter whether you're a racist/heretic or not.
Just the slightest possible whiff of "racism" (as defined by your accuser) is enough to get you burnt alive.
You will agree with the PC Church's opinions OR ELSE.

Congratulations Philo, you made a much better job of it than Mc Real, who seems to have left the arena since he can do little but heckle.

You say that people are not equal in intellect and ability, and of course you are right. But then you claim that “everybody equally serves a purpose in the community”.

Could you please explain just what “equal purpose” criminals and dole bludgers serve in a community? Are you suggesting that criminals and dole bludgers are the equal of employers, tradesmen, scientists and doctors?

Now, (I hope I don’t get burned at the stake by the HREOC Inquisitors for Heresy by saying this), since certain ethnic groups, notably gypsies, Lebanese, Pacific Islanders, black Africans, and aboriginal people are noted for their very high rates of criminal behaviour and welfare dependency in every western country in which they are present, do you think it would be a wise course of action for western governments to exclude people these ethnicities from emigrating to their lands?

If not, why not?