Justice Holmes of the US Supreme would limit restrictions on speech to such speech as presents a clear and present danger. He gave as an example yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Speech that can cause an immediate danger such as inciting a lynch mob is banned under common law provisions against incitement and harassment. I see no need for any anti-vilification legislation. Its effect is to silence crude expressions of racism or journalists who don't tread carefully. The problem is endemic racism not its crude or thoughtless expression.

"Huckleberry Finn" is an antiracist book which is a classic in US literature. It has been banned because it used the n-word for black people. If it hadn't used that word it would not have been accurately recording the speech of the time.

Speech which offends no one and no one finds loathsome is acceptable in a tyranny. Speech which some find offensive and loathsome but which presents no clear and present danger must be allowed or we do not have free speech.

An excellent article which I hope gets the wide readership it deserves.

Hi their . In regards to standing up for your rights I would have to add that their are two players in the melbourne Asian community who have stood out amonst their peer who have helped reduce racial velification in their community's . They have both been considered to be triad members but I don't know enough in this area so wont be commenting and that Is Tao Wei and Nick ho both from the eastern suburbs who many respect and admire in their work to help Asian youth empowerment . Their proficient grasp of the the English language has enabled them to speak to the higher members of social politics and demand work be done in their community's . Tao has been mistaken identity who continues to hold strong support within incarceration and nick who is strongly supported by so called omcg continues to be vocal in these area of contention .

I agree this is an excellent article. I'm not convinced you can legislate to prevent speech that may cause danger eg yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It seems to me that freedom of speech can only be fully realised by making if entirely free and that 'bad behaviour' can really only be moderated by convention, education and peer pressure. But if we can't agree on that, at least it seems we can agree that offending someone should not be a justification for punishment - lest the 'thin-lipped' and the 'thin skinned' - the people who think we should all think like them, get the upper hand (again).

richierhys
I agree, and especially on the use of social pressure and convention, rather than the force of law, to sanction unacceptable behaviour. The state can't and shouldn't arbitrate these things.

Social pressure in the form of ad hoc committees of vigilance and self appointed "Anti Racist" vigilantes have a terrible track record in this country. As we saw with the notorious and now defunct "Anti Bogan"website and Anti Racism generally all you get is a bunch of sad, marginalised White people ripping into another group of sad, marginalised White people,"Racism"in this context comes from a sense of helplessness, so does "Anti Racism". Let's face it, the anti discrimination laws only cause in group-out group hatred and wreck social cohesion within the White population and the really sad part is that they don't even apply to White Australians, we can be punished by them but we have no access mechanism of appeal against anti White vilification or discrimination.