I found much about this article disturbing, but my concerns crystallised in this sentence: “…speech that might be 'saved' by the 18D exemption is speech that belongs within our democracy, even if it is slightly offensive.”

So “slightly offensive” speech might be tolerable under certain circumstances in the name of democracy? This shows a profoundly inadequate understanding of both free speech and democracy.

Other are:
“At the very least Holocaust denial speech should be proscribed”
Why? Holocaust deniers are stupid, ignorant bigots. Nothing they say will have any material effect because they are manifestly denying the evidence of history for ideological purposes. Why make the likes of David Irving into a victim of the establishment when he is properly seen as an obsessive buffoon?

“if we consider the two parties most likely to be affected by any repeal of the current laws, namely, racists and their victims, it is easy to see who is more deserving of legal protection.”
Wrong. We do not extend legal protections to groups of citizens based on merit. Prostitutes and drug dealers have the same rights of legal redress against assault, for example, as nuns and charity workers.

“It is worth considering the type of message that any repeal would send to the attackers…”
No it isn’t. Repeal of law should be considered on its merits, not because of the “messages” it sends. The Commonwealth Family Law Act of 1975 made divorce easier, but that didn’t mean is should have been rejected for sending the “message” that divorce is a good thing. Repeal of prohibition didn’t send a “message” that alcoholism is ok.

Onjab

I suspect Bolt’s claim of hurt feelings is not sincere but ironic, and designed to make a point. The hurt feelings of fair-skinned aboriginal people are protected by the force of law. The hurt feelings of a person accused of being racist are not. His claims draw attention to the unfairness and asymmetry of the very different types of redress available for similar offences with similar consequences. Doubtless the ABC’s apology was an added bonus

YEBIGA, "What you say is true about the left but it is equally true of the right - both sides twist a narrative which is entirely self delusional"

Yes, free speech has many enemies.

This article is a typical lefty lawyer view of the issue. Bolt is not a lefty, he's anti-lefty, so the lefties necessarily have to attack him and never admit he was right. He was right about light skinned Aborigines. Even Marcia Langton had previously criticised the same group of people harshly as 'very late identifiers' who did so only to gain the meagre benefits of aboriginally from the governments of the time. Strange she should attack Bolt for what are her own views.

Finally, Bolt was not asking for an apology because he was upset. He was after an apology because Langton told lies about him on Q&A and secondly, the ABC host had gone on to describe those lies as 'facts of those sort'. He rightly received grudging apologies from both, admittedly half-arsed, and through gritted teeth.

The left absolutely hates being proved wrong ... and having to admit it.

Unless lefties can bring themselves to admit that Bolt should have had the right to say what he did about white Aborigines (and that they would defend his right to do so), they have no idea about freedom of speech.

Yet another imported foreigner who has the effrontery to lecture Australians on what he thinks our values should be.

Andrew Bolt did not engage in "hate speech." He wrote an article about whether people who have only the merest trace of aboriginal ancestry should be eligible for the generous welfare programs aimed at aboriginal people. As such, it was an article which investigated a social issue which was pertinent to Australians. That a respected journalist from a daily newspaper can be effectively shut up from making any comments about a contemporary social issue is a disgrace.

Memo to this author. Free speech on social and political issues in western societies is a done deal. If you don't like it, then please go back to whatever foreign cesspit you sprang from and where they all think like you do. It is incredible that imported foreigners like yourself would even have the nerve to try and tell Australians that you do not like our freedom of speech.

When multiculturalism proves itself to be so fragile that it needs to supress the western worlds most valued freedoms in order to prop it up, then it only goes to proves that multiculturalism is a failure that must be dismantled. And it is being dismantled now in so many western countries. if you won't integrate and support our most deeply held values, what are you doing in our country? Unless you substantially accept Australian most deeply held values, you will never be accepted as an Australian, any more than a white person who immigrates to India, and who does not substantially accept Indian values, will never be accepted by Indians as an Indian.