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.