The author wrote: "A better way forward than repeal might therefore be to recalibrate Section 18C in a way that limits it operation, gives greater scope to the views of the community and, with it, greater deference to freedom of expression; after all, the more prohibitions on speech, the less freedom of speech."

That is not a better way. Free speech is free speech. One has a right to disagree with the views of the community. Free speech should not be limited by the views of the community.

"Community standards" could be a reason to ban Lady Chatterly's Lover or just about anything else. I am offended by this suggestion. Now, which court should i approach for redress?

I understand the point you are making, but do not agree. There is no "test" whether more objective or not that justifies taking away freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. We survived a long time without Section 18C and undoubtedly will continue to do so for another long time. An harmonious society requires mutual respect from the various groupings comprising that society, and such respect must be earned by all groups. Australia is and has been a very tolerant nation. We do not need to be regulated by legislation that is offensive to the human condition.

It is the current anything-and-everything immigration policy that is "undermining community cohesion".

This is not a solution. As Mark Steyn and others have said, the process is the punishment. So as long as these silly laws remain on the books, activists will exploit them to subject their targets to the scarifying process of being dragged before a court over something they said. They don't have to win. They simply have to make it known that people should voluntarily constrain their free speech or risk the process.

Bolt feels rightly constrained even now. He won't/can't comment on the issues that saw him in court and similar issues. So the activists have won. He's terrified of getting accused again and going through that process. That is not free speech. The judge even threw out the free speech defence written into the present law. The fact that he could do so is terrifying, essentially saying there is no free speech defence.

Finally, would these proposals have prevented Bolt being firstly, accused, secondly, taken to court, and finally, found guilty? The government has said they want to change the law so that this would not have happened to him. Unles we get that result (and I don't see it here) then there's no use doing anything.

Free speech should be as near as possible, totally free. The individual, not group, is the most oppressed minority when free speech isn't free.

Australia is full of conformist and moralising self-enforcing people. Why do we need to give the thought police a stick to smash their political enemies with? The law is un-necessary because the community will speak back.

THAT is free speech. Accept nothing less.