At least the Bolt case has got the point Bolt was making being discussed among those people who are primarily affected by that point; I wonder if the author has an opinion about this:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_comment27/

I agree in broad principle with most of the article.
However, I disagree that non identifying pictures not accompanied by commentary or opinion are in fact, racial discrimination?
Rather, just shameful disclosure/exposure of the visible and uncomplimentary facts, that patently speak volumes and or, for themselves?
Even so, and having said that, there are places and or occasions where this sort of exposure, ought to be excluded!
There is no case which can be mounted for a public or patently morbid interest in private grief, such as might be witnessed at a private grave site.
Nor should public figures be constantly hounded or deprived of a right to privacy, [the rest of us take for granted,] by similar morbid or unwelcome uninvited interest; the like of which, resulted in the death of Princess Diana!
With a more liberal interpretation of public interest and opinion, comes a need to strengthen privacy laws and current common law rights; or, even a long overdue bill of rights, which will finally decide just how far we can legally go, with liberalised free speech.
I believe the best way to deal with either overt or covert racism is to publicly humiliate/ridicule/poke fun at it and all those who hold extreme views.
This should start in compulsory Kindergarten, to counter the often extreme views of some parents, which is arguably, where all forms of racism/bullying or extreme views are learned or made seemingly socially acceptable?
Rhrosty.

As an after thought or footnote:
A more liberal democracy must surely start with much more public involvement/decision making in the pre-selection process. And follow that with an electronic assisted system of secret voting/ballots in all our parliaments; meaning, voting on legislation, could be carried out in the privacy of the member's office.
Overdue reform in the form of secret ballots, clearly embodies freedom of opinion, the unimpeded exercise of conscience in all matters, and the very fundamentals of a liberalised democracy.
This is where fair dinkum liberalised democracy starts and would change the nature of our parliaments, usher in the best orators and the most impassioned and persuasive evocation!
As opposed to current stand over bully boys reportedly ruling the roust; or, effectively deciding all issues or legislative outcomes!
Rhrosty.

Oh how the left hate their hypocrisy exposed. Just asked Bolt. Poor Bessy Price is finding out what its like to speak the truth. The left are often nasty, slimy and untruthful. Look at the way they attacked Howard over his 'racist ' Nauru ' solution. Their nastiness has led to about a thousand deaths and now a total backflip in order to save their hide.

The author states "Yet, there is a small core of male gamers who feel dislocated by the 'encroachment' of females into what was previously a male-dominated arena. Their response to that is predictably vulgar and offensive."
Is their response "predictably vulgar" because they are "male" or is it because they are generally white or is it because they are generally young? Or are gamers just generally vulgar? In any case this author appears to be stereotyping and vilifying gamers.
Should the law prevent him from doing so?
I think this idea that we should be able to go through life without being offended is a real problem and likely to be highly detrimental to our future as a society.
The author says "The whole point of free speech is that it facilitates democratic participation." I don't think that is correct. It may be one of the reasons, but the main reason is that free speech allows the truth to come out. Any restriction on free speech (other than false advertising etc) only serves to protect certain opinions from being challenged. If an opinion is valid then it will stand up to all manner of challenges and there is no need for the law to step in to protect it. As far as racist facebook pages go, How about just not looking at them.

You've got to be kidding Rhrosty. Just how damn stupid do you think we are, or perhaps, how stupid are you.

Without a voting record we could be voting for some cunning as a sh1t house rat Green.

We all know that greens could not lie straight in bed, & with a compliant press prepared to prostitute it self for a story, they wouldn't tell us when some conniving rotten dove was not presenting itself as a nice hawk.

No way I'm prepared to let some polly tell us what they will do. Just look at last time, with "no carbon tax in a government I lead" bull. It's what they actually do that matters.

So sorry mate, a good try, but you ain't pulling that swifty. I still can't believe you would think you could get away with such a con.

Besides, it would be happening to you too. There are increasing numbers of people awakening to the con, & turning just a bit brown. they may just con you.

Of course there is always the old one about getting the best pollys money could buy. How the hell would we be able to tell who had been bought, if we can't see their voting record.

Back to the drawing board there mate, that one won't stop stinking.