"Blind to their hypocrisy, they unjustly insulted and ridiculed this thoroughly decent man as a racist and a bully, thereby exhibiting every odious quality of the behaviour they came to condemn."

So, they weren't exercising their right to free speech?

Yes, Grim, they were - but also demonstrating their lack of principle, because they misused that freedom to lie and slander. People, if they are unprincipled, are free to maliciously defame - they have "free speech" - but those defamed are free to seek damages. What we cannot indulge is people seeking to use the law simply to silence people whose opinions they find offensive, but which are neither defamatory nor inciting to violence.

... and another thing we cannot indulge is the compere of a publicly funded programme like Q&A egging on this slander. Read the transcript for last Monday's Q&A at the link... Will Tony Jones do the honourable thing tonight on Q&A and apologise for his part in facilitating the unjust defamation of Andrew Bolt? If not, his credibility as an apolitical (LOL) mediator is shot, and his position is untenable.

One is free to speak that which offends no one in the most odious tyranny. By using offense as a criterion to limit speech a government may silence criticism. The only issue I have with the article is the reference to Bolt as a decent man. I think some of Bolt's opinions are quite offensive, but in a free society he has the right to voice them. He should not be subject to legal penalties for doing so or for not being a decent man.

Truth is no defense against charges of defamation. Defamation statutes should also be repealed. Speech should only be limited in cases of incitement, harassment or, in the words of Justice Holmes, where it presents a "clear and present danger".

I haven't seen that particular Q&A but from the little snippets I saw I can not fathom how people can be so devoid of integrity to call Brandis wrong. That Lisa sheilah lost me when she blabbered a couple things about Abbott. Without actually hearing what she said in context I could tell that she was off the planet.

Thousands of people marched in Australia's cities over last weekend because they all felt powerless.
We can protest as much as we like about Australia's laws, but the smirk
on our Prime Ministers face and his side-kicks when confronted by the marchers concerns said it all.

I've always held that free speech ought to include the right to offend, always providing there is no deliberate malice, and it only ever presented as opinion; or, verifiable facts?
For example, I could conceivably offend flat earthers, by subjecting their belief system, to unbridled ribald satire?
However, I wouldn't have commented in a very public place, that a dark skinned very hairy individual, was a monkey.
Inferring in that patently racist remark, that only some of us, are in fact, Primates?
That said, I was astounded to learn, we, none of us have a legally enforceable right to privacy!
This argument about color has been going on for centuries, with some tribes, reportingly committing genocide, by picking up entirely innocent babies, and bashing heads up against rocks or tree trunks or some such, on the grounds, the skin was the wrong color!?
I also believe, our aboriginality, ought to pass some sort of common sense test.
Some of my ancestors were tasmanian aboriginals, yet my skin is white.
I agree the Professor, crossed a line, in the way she used that forum, as just a platform, for her usual, reverse racist views.
Racism, is not exclusively, limited to the white races!
Personally, and on reflection, I think Andrew Bolt could be right, and some of us are just too white to be able to claim aboriginality, or disown our white forbears, many of whom, would have been the worst offenders, with rape and or, abandonment, included in the family history.
That said, at the end of the day, we need our so called liberties to be enshrined in law, as an irrefutable bill of rights!
One of which ought to be free speech, another, a legally enforceable right to privacy!
Common law, the Magna Carta and the later emancipation act, simply doesn't cut it!
Rhrosty.

Those who srceam racism at every turn are the real racists.

Congratulations David van Gend for such a cogent article. As for Q&A, I no longer watch it because of its bias and unfairness so I did not see the egregious behaviour to which you refer. As for Tony Jones, I am sick of writing to the ABC to complain about his unreasonable bias. However, all the ABC does is condone this ratbag journalist. It is more evidence that the ABC really needs cleaning up from the top down. I hope that "St George" of the Brandis can fully deliver on this one and that he gets the whole hearted support of the Government. In my view, the attack on free speech and opinion by the raving looney left is so dangerous that if a double dissolution is needed to get it thru the Parliament it would be well justified.

As an after thought may I add that in my view Section 18C is a serious impediment to the nation adopting any further changes to the Constitution, as are presently planned. There must be a lot of voting Australians who perceive that not only are they being told what they can say, but also what they should think. Perhaps we will reach the point where enough is enough.

Pliny of Perth: the first 10mins or so of that Q&A are well worth watching - and the theme comes back later in the show. And to think that these are professional journalists next to Brandis, failing to see the necessity of vigorous public argument - even argument that gets rude at times - for a self-determining political culture. Failing to see that either we are free to thrash out the great questions amongst ourselves (Aristotle defined democracy: "Free citizens deliberating the question: how shall we order our lives together?") or we become servile subjects...
Link at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3946770.htm

Great read David
I look forward to the day when the left wing humanitarian realises how they're particular psychology is exactly the same as the far right. They will both sacrifice everything for their vision of the truth.

This hate speech legislation is inspired by a horrible misreading of history. The NAZI success was not won by hate speech, it was won by suppressing opposition by thugs initially and the law finally.

Every common decency we take for granted was won by people exercising their freedom of speech.

I dream of a society that locks up clowns who wish to fetter our freedom of speech into asylums for the insane.

Thank u David. Good article.

I think we can all agree that insulting others is wrong, that we should try to avoid it.

We may however have different opinions as to how to respond when others do it anyway.

For the one insulted, the best option is to do nothing. It's a great penance and much easier than turning the other cheek for a physical slap.

But some are not up to that.

Could we then expect at least, not to escalate a verbal conflict into a physical one?

Litigation can have physical consequences (fines, prison), so verbal abuse is requited with physical damage. This is not proper!

If punishment is to be meted out, then it should be of the same kind. Perhaps we should have a verbal-abuse tribunal, where improper statements are punished by verbal publications against the perpetrator, but not physically.

Incisive and brief, this is by far the best article I have read on the subject. Thank you.

“And to think that these are professional journalists next to Brandis, failing to see the necessity of vigorous public argument - even argument that gets rude at times - for a self-determining political culture”
Once again David, you appear to not recognise the symmetry of your own argument.
You defend the right of Bolt to be as offensive as he likes, yet get prissy when Jones et al use similar yet counter tactics. By taking a stand (much like Bolt but opposite) isn't Jones stimulating “vigorous public argument?”
You report Bolt's detractors have apologised; isn't that something Bolt himself is famously reluctant to do?
Your whole argument seems to be that anyone -like Bolt- who agrees with you should be allowed to be rude, but anyone who doesn't, shouldn't.
I would appreciate your criticism of defamation laws more if you applied them a little more even handedly.

In general I agree, but what on earth is a 'family activist'? By 'gay activists' you presumably mean people who are working to see that laws and behaviours don't discriminate against people for no defensible reason, but what do 'family activists' work for? Unjustifiable discrimination in favour of one particular type of family, presumably. You would be more honest to call yourself a 'heterosexual-parent family activist', or a 'religiously-dictated family activist'. But I guess that wouldn't sound nearly as impressive, or support your high-minded claim to be advocating free speech and liberty for all.

An interesting and topical article in Australia's answer to Huffpost:
http://www.burdekinherald.com/2014/03/17/bolt-breaks-down-over-qa-bullying/
For insightful, sincere and honest reporting, I wouldn't go anywhere else.

Grim,
thank you for that link, it is a perfect example of the nastyness of leftist indoctrination furthering disharmony & furthering the Nazi mentality of the left.

Didn't Jesus himself bully the moneychangers?
Didn't he vilify the Pharisees?
Freedom requires protest, protest requires harsh words, assembly, strikes?

Father forgive them for they know not what they do,

Father forgive them for they know not what they do,
Yebiga,
I'd be interesting to hear Jesus's opinion on the lefties new. I doubt he'd ask the old man to forgive them again. Stupidity does have its limits.

The author referred to Bolt as a "thoroughly decent man." Without knowing of a person's innermost thoughts and all of his actions we cannot know if a person is "thoroughly decent." Even then it is a subjective judgment. However, it is irrelevant as free speech would not exist if it were limited to those deemed decent. I think neither Bolt nor his detractors have anything to apologise for. Free speech is bound to upset somebody.

1. David f – fair point re the presumption of “thoroughly decent”, but we give people the presumption of decency unless there is reason to doubt it. I have known Andrew Bolt as an acquaintance for many years and nothing he has said or written gives reason to doubt his good will and decency. He is an intelligent humanist in the classical / renaissance tradition, and he has the one virtue without which no other virtue can survive: courage. I stick to my assessment of him.

2. Jon J – the shorthand of “family activist” is inadequate, I agree, but it distinguishes those who put priority on the family – mother-father-child – as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” (Universal declaration of human rights article 16) versus those who put priority on the assertion of individual sexuality. As ethicist Prof Margaret Somerville puts it, “gay marriage forces us to choose between giving priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims”. We have to discriminate between these irreconcilable claims. As I put it in that Courier Mail article (as per link):
“Yes, it is discrimination to prohibit the marriage of two men, but it is just and necessary discrimination, because the only alternative is the far worse act of discrimination against children, brought artificially into the world by such men, forced to live their whole life without a mother”.
That, to me, is the heart of the matter. You are free to caricature it in the manner typical of adult-centred proponents of homosexual “marriage-equality”. I will argue that the child’s birth-right to both a mother and father – wherever possible – should have priority.

There is no onus on the offended to actually prove if and why they are offended. This in itself seems a dangerous precedent. Why are some people offended by the remarks of someone like Bolt and others whom he is supposed to have insulted not affected at all? Surely if his remarks are offensive then it should affect everyone of aboriginal descent. This must raise questions about what exactly offence is. It is now being defined as what a ‘reasonable person’ would find offensive. It may well be that reasonable people could be wrong. Witches used to be burned at the stake because it was deemed reasonable.

A definitive answer is needed in order to remove the subjectivity which is open to major abuse. You cannot get inside someone’s head or body to determine exactly if they are feeling discomfort or pain – their claim to be offended would never stand up in court as evidence in any other circumstance that is legislated for. Anyone with a vindictive attitude could claim to be offended and a great deal of emotional manipulation can accompany such a claim. This emotional manipulation is what changes a ‘reasonable person’ into a person who sides with the victim for anything but reason. The professor on Q&A was so full of bitterness and resentment and I could not help but remember the dignity and reasonableness of Nelson Mandela who never sought to achieve his aims by emotional manipulation.

continued -

Unless you can prove that there is a distinct cause and effect between what is said and what is felt in the hearer then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the principle of free speech. People no doubt feel pain when opinions are expressed or when abuse is metered out but is that pain caused by what is said or is it pain that already exists and is triggered by what is said. Many Aboriginal people carry pain that has its origins in childhood. They carry that with them for years later and every time they hear racial abuse or opinions they perceive as racial abuse those wounds are opened up. This is not unique to Aboriginal people – it is unique to everyone who holds on to that pain and fails to take responsibility for healing that pain. It can be done and it explains why not everyone is affected by what is said. It is not the government’s responsibility to enact laws to help you avoid dealing with your personal pain.

None of this is to suggest that abusive behaviour which is aimed at triggering that pain should not be dealt with – but not by government interference. We are quite capable of dealing with it simply by social change and peer pressure. So much such aggression has been eliminated because of these methods and we need to continue to work towards creating a more peaceful society by challenging those who seek to hurt others for whatever reason.

It is wrong to abandon the hard won right to freedom of speech when we cannot guarantee that the speech is really the problem in the first place and it is wrong to appeal to the government to do for us what we are capable of doing for ourselves.

Well said, Phanto. One reason given for limiting free speech is that racial vilification can lead to discrimination. That is true. It also may not lead to discrimination. One of the dangers of free speech is that it may lead to undesirable acts. However, that is one of the risks of a free society. If we allow speech we may encourage undesirable acts which would destroy our free society. If we ban speech we have destroyed our free society. The first is a risk. The second is a certainty.

We must not confuse speech with action. We must be able to punish acts of discrimination but still allow the speech which may lead to those acts. Free speech will inevitably cause some to be offended. That should not be a reason to limit speech.

David
I often disagree with A.Bolt but always defend his right to express his opinion. On these domestic issues relating to the bizarre manifestations of post oppression studies I concur with him mostly.

However, re international affairs and politics in general he is mesmerised by authority figures and consistently reiterates their mantra with but a veneer understanding of the subject matter. He fawns over Abbot today, as he drooled over Howard some years ago. In his binary world the liberal leader is always inspired the labour leader always the subject of scorn.

Similalrly, your stated opposition of two homosexual parents denying the child a mother is absent of reason. For two lesbian women would offer said child two mothers or two gay men two fathers. Given what we know of the rate of marriages which end in divorce, the rate of domestic violence in our homes and many stories of child neglect why would a two father or two mother home be necessarily denying the child anything at all.

The same logic which informs you of the necessity of free speech should inform you of the stupidity of attempting to impose your own superstitions on to those who pose no threat to you or anyone else. If you have a reasoned argument beyond "motherhood" I would be eager to become acquainted with it. Otherwise, I suggest you are merely displaying very common symptoms common to individuals with repressed sexual anxiety. Please stop it.

"... and another thing we cannot indulge is the compere of a publicly funded programme like Q&A egging on this slander. Read the transcript for last Monday's Q&A at the link... Will Tony Jones do the honourable thing tonight on Q&A and apologise for his part in facilitating the unjust defamation of Andrew Bolt? If not, his credibility as an apolitical (LOL) mediator is shot, and his position is untenable."

This is typical bias on the part of Tony Jones, a loyal member of Green-left ABC GroupThink. Such bias is so entrenched in the ABC that ABC corporate staff fail to see the bias when it is the subject of complaint. Hence, it would not surprise if Jones failed to apologise.

It was not surprising that the two assessors recently appointed by ABC CEO Mark Scott to look into Aunty's alleged bias, found little or no bias on Aunty's part -- that the two assessors had worked previously for the ABC, appears to have been regarded as irrelevant to the assessment. Such is the arrogant partiality exercised by the ABC.

Yebiga, if your life experience allows you to so disparage the relationship of mother and baby, I pity you. As a family doctor I know that it is the most profound and formative relationship in human life, closely followed by that between father and child. Of course some children miss out on a mother or father through tragedy - because marriages beak up or a parent dies. Surely you wouldn't wish that deprivation on a child? But same-sex marriage does with that deprivation on a child. Laws for same-sex marriage either force a child to miss out on a mother (by two-men marriage) or on a father (by two-women marriage) and that is an offense against the child's fundamental right - protected in the international covenant and elsewhere - to be raised, where possible, by her own parents. If you are blind to the primal importance of the mother-child bond and of the father-child bond, I cannot make you see it, and we will agree to disagree.

Pliny of Perth: "As an after thought may I add that in my view Section 18C is a serious impediment to the nation adopting any further changes to the Constitution, as are presently planned. There must be a lot of voting Australians who perceive that not only are they being told what they can say, but also what they should think. Perhaps we will reach the point where enough is enough."

Fair point. Sadly, both Shorten and Abbott appear to be politicking for a proposed change to the Constitution to give special recognition to indigenous people. If such a change were passed, it would mean that the Constitution (which presently calls for freedom of speech) no longer would treat all peoples as equals -- it would discriminate in favour of the indigenous.

Dear David,

<<However, that is one of the risks of a free society...If we ban speech we have destroyed our free society.>>

Is all else well in the Kingdom of Denmark? Are we indeed, other than free speech, living in a free society?

The state limits our life in so many other ways, from before we are born till after our death, including in matters that have no bearing over other people's freedom or well-being, so why pick on this luxury, this minor issue of speech (in public, because nobody limits our private conversations) which does actually carry the risk, as you say yourself, of hurting other people? Is it so important that we be able to talk and talk and talk forever while government doesn't care, knowing well that the only outcome would be us growing tired?

I'd be more worried for example about your statement:
<<We must be able to punish acts of discrimination>>

Discrimination is perhaps the highest human faculty and you want it banned? Now this is not speech-police, this is thought police!

People should be free to have their own ideas of what and who is desirable and undesirable for them, whose company they seek and whose company they avoid. Are you saying that while people should be able to say all they like, they still should be forced to associate with others they don't like and stay away from those they like?

Dear Yuyutsu,

When you deny a person employment on the basis of some criterion which has nothing to do with the person's ability to do the job that is illegal and should be. I think you know that and are just playing with words. That has nothing to do with thought police. That is what is meant by discrimination. Stop playing stupid.

Yuyutsu – Discrimination is not a faculty it is a behaviour which is defined by law. It is the act of behaving in such a way that withholds a right to which everyone is entitled and to withhold it for no valid reason other than the colour of their skin or their gender or some other immutable distinction. You seem to have your own dictionary and talk about situations that exist only for you. Unless you agree about what words mean and talk of concrete situations then it is impossible to engage with you.

Your post makes absolutely no sense to anyone but yourself but unless you can find common ground about words and real situations with those whom you seem to want to debate with it is futile to continue.

Suggesting that we should not protect the value of free speech because other problems exist in society sounds like you have an agenda to reject this society in favour of another one that operates like the one inside your head.

Dear David,

Most people spend their money on things they believe will make them happy.

What right have you to demand that they spend their money instead on something they believe would make them unhappy?

Dear Phanto,

<<It is the act of behaving in such a way that withholds a right to which everyone is entitled and to...>>

Are you suggesting that everyone is entitled to my money?

<<Suggesting that we should not protect the value of free speech because other problems exist in society>>

Free speech, besides its potential to harm others, can provide a delusion of freedom, rather than actual freedom. One is allowed to stand on the roof and talk until the cows come home, but it would still be a criminal offence to sell their raw milk.

David
It is indeed a profound relationship between mother/father and child, but as a doctor can you elaborate what the father/mothers' genitals have to do with their nurturing relationship?

It is a foolish argument you are trying to backwardly engineer to conform with your inherently conservative values. I am happy to here a genuine reason - if you can find one.

On the issue of free speech you are applying your logical mind and I congratulate you. On this issue regarding which gender should raise children there is no reasoning except biology and anthropology

Dear Yuyutsu,

Our dialogue is ended since you do not make sense to me.

Dear David,

This was in reply to your claim that: "When you deny a person employment on the basis of some criterion which has nothing to do with the person's ability to do the job that is illegal and should be."

In other words, you say that the only valid reason for a person to employ another is to have a job done.

But why would an employer want to have that job done to begin with?
Isn't it usually because she believes it would make her happier?
Perhaps because as a result she will have more money with which she could have things that she believes would make her happier?

So neither having a job done, nor earning money is the goal for which the employer spends her money - it is (usually) her happiness which she seeks.

Now if having someone around which she doesn't like (be it for their skin-colour or whatever) makes her unhappy, perhaps even upset and miserable, then why should she pay for it?

Phanto seems to answer this question by claiming that your money is not yours to enjoy, but instead, everyone else is entitled to it. Are you in agreement?

I don't think either Left or Right sides of politics advocate the criminalising of offensive speech. It's the authoritarian personalities that pepper both political sides and, unfortunately, have a more than average tendency to move up the ranks and into power who subscribe to the silencing and punishing of opinions they don't like.

When this 'taking offence' legislation was first put up, I was dumbfounded that it was even taken seriously, let alone passed. The sooner it's wiped off the legislative books, the better.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We live in a world of large corporations and other large organisations. Most corporate jobs go through the personnel department. A person employed by a personnel department must have as his or her only criterion when hiring an employee whether or not the person is capable of doing a job better than the other applicants. If the personnel person does not have that as his or her only criterion that person is not serving the best interests of the organisation. That person is also not serving the interests of the applicant and of society. An applicant is entitled to fair consideration, and society is entitled to stability. That stability is endangered if a particular group of people are discriminated against on the basis of skin colour or other criteria which have nothing to do with their job. Corporations may not systematically discriminate against any group of persons by any criteria other than competence. Corporations are part of our society and must abide by the standards of our society.

The same goes for applicants to medical school or other training for skilled occupations. Society is entitled to having the best qualified person for the job. If I am having an operation on my heart I am entitled to expect that the person who is performing that operation has been given the training and hired solely on their prospective or actual competence.

One may also not deny a person public accommodation because one does not like their skin colour.

In most cases one may not use any criteria other than competence in assigning a person to a function. This is part of the fair go that is talked about in Australia.

An individual may have prejudices, but for the good of others and of society that individual is limited in acting on those prejudices. Discrimination results in a meaner, poorer and more unfair society. The freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress.

@Killarney, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:37:44 PM

Agreed.

Talking about Left,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky

Dear David,

I can understand the case for corporations: since they asked for the benefits connected with being incorporated, following certain guidelines is a reasonable price that society may exact in return.

Same of course for medical schools and public accommodation, which are highly subsidised by the state.

Where I disagree is when it comes to private individuals. Their (after-tax) money is theirs to enjoy, not to suffer, especially not for the interests of an involuntary society whom they never consented to be part of.

You just mentioned "the freedom to oppress", but isn't denying someone the freedom to be around people they like and not around people they dislike, a clear case of oppression?

I certainly oppose oppression, I just don't believe that denying someone which I don't like a share of my hard-earned money is a form of oppression. Is there any way you can substantiate your claim that "the freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress"?

Dear OnTheBeach,

Surely you have a right to say things which others despise, but why must you do it in front of them when you can reasonably expect them to be hurt?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have complete freedom in your private life to decide who you will associate with. When you pay taxes you cannot decide that your money will be denied to those you don’t like. The government decides where the money will go supposedly for the public good whether you like those who receive it or not.

The freedom to discriminate is the freedom to oppress. If you own a business and you deny a person employment because you don’t like that person because of that person’s skin colour or any other reason that has nothing to do with the person’s ability to do the job you are being unfair. The person is oppressed because they are being denied a fair chance to make a living.

Your freedom is limited when it interferes with the freedom of others. Your fist is free to move where it will as long as it doesn’t hurt others. When we travel on a highway we are not free to move into a lane which contains traffic flowing in the other direction.

As a practical matter the government cannot ensure that hiring and firing will always be decided strictly on competence. However, where it can be done it should be done.

The milieu in which we operate determines our freedom of association. In private life we have freedom to decide who we will associate with. In public life we don’t. Running a business is a part of public life.

You wrote to OnTheBeach,

“Surely you have a right to say things which others despise, but why must you do it in front of them when you can reasonably expect them to be hurt?”

To deny a person employment when they are capable of doing a job is a greater hurt than saying nasty things.

Dear David,

Let's first take law-enforcement out of the equation: as it stands, almost anyone who wants to discriminate finds a way to either bypass or break the existing law. If one is ever caught doing so, they end up paying compensation and firing the person they don't like, or at worst pay them to stay home.

Also, let's take taxation out the equation: I was not arguing here against tax or its use.

Now employment need not be by businesses: individuals can also employ others for their private/domestic needs and unincorporated groups of individuals can employ others for their common pursuits - but even a business is not necessarily part of public life, unless it is an incorporated company or involves public funds and/or other public privileges. Some businesses may not even offer their services to the public: they could for example already have an established closed group of clients, possibly not even in Australia.

(I am however inclined to believe that when a business employs someone other than purely for the purpose of doing a job best, thus providing income for the business, then to that extent such employment should not be recognised as a tax-deduction)

Whether everyone is entitled for "a fair chance to earn a living" is a huge issue for another thread, but even if they are, nothing entitles them to obtain that chance from any other private individual. When a business is completely private (or as above, not truly a business), the owner can close it at any time and is not obliged to employ anyone: she doesn't owe anyone a job.

Giving something to another to which they are not entitled (by the giver), is a favour or a gift. Failing to do a favour may be considered unfair, but is not a "hurt". It may legitimately bring disrepute on the withholder and possibly also be considered in heaven's tribunal after one dies, but not by a human court below.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am weary of our interchange so will stop.

Dear David,

<<I am weary of our interchange so will stop.>>

Thank you for this personal example.

I wish I could say the same on other threads when I feel the same.

I often am weary myself, but keep going anyway, sacrificing my health, my sleep, my work and other things as I feel it's my duty to respond.

Well Done!

Bolt can give offence so why can't he stand being at the receiving end? I am truly sorry he has received death threats, because I feel for anyone that happens to, however he has deeply offended a number of Aboriginal people and appears to be completely ignorant that the very essence of racism is the dominant group defining the "race" of others for them. As Marcia Langton said on Q & A - which I did watch that night - Bolt has made allegations that particular people are not Aboriginal due to colour of their skin, making them feel that their family history - their parents and grandparents - are being erased. On a related point, the court case that Bolt lost on this issue could have been a defamation case except that the Aboriginal litigants chose to make the case under 18c of the anti discrimination legislation.

Freedom of speech should not protect the right to broadcast lies and deceptions, and that in the end was what Bolt was found guilty of. 18C -balanced with 18d- really ain't that tough.
While “offence” is very much more in the hands of the offendee than the offender , the problem of who has the right to be offended is addressed by the test of reasonableness in 18d.
(Remember how a canny Indonesian politician put Keating right in his place and directed a gullible media away from his own misdeeds, merely by choosing to be “deeply offended” by the term 'recidivist'?)
The monocular attitudes of the righteous right never cease to amaze. It seems to be the same people who demand “balance” in the climate change issue complain the loudest over bias in the ABC.
Since 95% of the people who actually study climate issues support AGW, wouldn't fair balance be 95 articles for, and 5 against? Why do the tiny handful of ratbags (who incidentally represent corporate interests) get at least 50% -if not more- media coverage?
As for balance in the ABC, why do they have to be objective, and the corporate side not? If the corporate side has the right to publish and broadcast the corporate perspective, surely the ABC has not only a right but -in the name of 'balance'- an obligation to expose the counter view?
Who else will stand against the corporations?
Democratic governments are not the greatest threat to future freedom...
Except when they're in bed with corporations.

Grim – Nobody has the ‘right’ to be offended either you are or you are not. A right is something given by someone or a group to someone else it is also something that can be taken away. Offended means hurt – feeling pain. No one can give you the right to feel pain or take away that right anymore than they can take away your right to feel tired or sick or hot or cold.

No one is suggesting that people do not feel pain when certain opinions are expressed but exactly what causes that pain? To say that there is always a direct cause between what is said and what is felt is to lack understanding about the nature of human beings. Human beings feel this type of pain because they already have that pain in their bodies. In most cases it has been there since childhood and it gets triggered when they hear certain things. Another adult under the same circumstances may feel nothing at all. We are not dealing here with people’s rights but with their feelings. They feel a pain and want speech curtailed so that they no longer have to feel that pain but that runs the risk of silencing so many otherwise perfectly reasonable opinions. Limiting free speech does not help either the offended or the society. There are many other ‘unprotected’ groups who can claim offence and if everyone gets their way we will have a society where we are all afraid to open our mouth for fear of litigation.

This argument is not about protecting Aboriginals from discrimination it is about helping them deal with the pain they feel when certain things are said even if those things are deliberately meant to harm. Someone who has faced their own feelings and owned what has happened to them would not be offended by Bolt. They probably wouldn’t even bother to listen to him since most of his opinions are not worth hearing.

I quite agree Phanto.
My point is people can choose to be offended, and they can choose not to be offended. Personally, I would not choose to be offended by someone I didn't know, or who didn't know me; their opinions could not be well informed and therefore not worth being taken seriously.
But that is a purely personal experience, and is in fact deliberately excluded from 18c-18d. The issue here is of a public broadcaster deliberately casting aspersions on the characters of people he couldn't possibly know; misinforming countless Australians and quite possibly causing not only mental but physical anguish by inciting others.
In short, he was generalising; putting a large number of people into the same boat and inferring they were all the same, with the same motives, feelings and ambitions, based on their ancestry.
This is the essence of racism.

Johnj : "Bolt has made allegations that particular people are not Aboriginal due to colour of their skin, making them feel that their family history - their parents and grandparents - are being erased."

You will find that Bolt did not allege that they were not Aboriginal due to colour of their skin. He would have been aware of former High Court Justice Deane's definition of Aboriginal that has become accepted as current law, viz.
" By "Australian Aboriginal" I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians)

The following extracts from reports of the court case do not support your assertion:

" At issue was Bolt's assertion that the nine applicants had chosen to identify themselves as “Aboriginal” and consequently win grants, prizes and career advancement, despite their apparently fair skin and mixed heritage." (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/andrew-bolt-x-racial-vilification-court-case/story-e6frg996-1226148919092)

" Mr Bolt's series of blog posts that were found to have breached the law suggested that "fair-skinned" indigenous people took advantage of their heritage to make political or career gains. (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-apology-fails-to-appease-andrew-bolt-20140318-34yug.html )

Isn't it funny how those who promote freedom of speech bleat being offended in the same breath ?
To have truly freedom of speech there can't be any offending then can there ?

Individual, you entirely miss the point. Those who defend free speech fully expect to be offended, and it is part of normal robust discussion to point out that something offensive - or false and misleading or unfair or whatever - has been said, and so allow one's interlocutor to reconsider what was said. The difference is that defenders of free speech do not seek to use the force of law to silence those who offend them. They just want to argue freely with fellow citizens on matters of public importance without the intrusion of the thought police.

David van Gend,
In an ideal world yes, but in Australia we have a whole army of feigned indignation soldiers & they're always on the lookout for earnest comments to be twisted as offensive.

Thanks, individual - I misunderstood your point. I thought you were having a go at situations such as where Andrew Bolt required an apology from ABC Q&A for their grossly offensive (indeed defamatory) smear - and a Prof of politics says there should be no recourse to ask for such an apology.

Explained by Andrew here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_professor_rages_free_speech_means_never_having_to_say_youre_sorry_for_a_f/