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.