Good to read an expert analysis of Section 18c which, by putting it in a legal and moral context, offers a compelling argument to explain why this ill-considered provision is actually an insult to its intended beneficiaries.

Max Atkinson

THE POINT IS WIll dopers no hopers d..DRROUGGIES STILL GET NAME CALLED
Or deniers /commiES NATZIES POLES BIAfrins irish ..or just by the jew?

JUST FOR FUN..INFOM Yourself
see that much of the fabled 'abuses',..were in HOUSE
IE THERE ARE ORe sectarian attacks og PLACES OF WHORESIP/IN ISRAEL/THAN THE REST OF US GOBALLY...HUH?

WE FIND ANNFRANK WAS WRITTen by a frank not an anne
the list goes on endesslybut their ONLY NAMES YOU arnt your name

i want SIMPLY A LAW THAT ALLOWS US TO COMPLAIN/ABOUT THE UNSPOKE ABUSES..LIKE IS FORCING SMOKERS TO WAK/SUCH A GOOD Idea?

no realy the right to anger mannage with a simple 'smoke'
is under appriciated..and over policed..and \over hated

i cant EVEN TAK OF SMOKING ON THE MEDIA
AND YOUR WORRIED ABOUT BEING A TOWEL HEAD?

STICK AND BONE MR jones
sicks aND STONE/BROKEN BONE..NO VICTIM/NO CRIme
but if i could sue you freaking name/blae callers..MAYBE YOU HATER GO AWAY/FIND OTHER WAYS TO HATE

NGOS CANT RULE THEIR OWN EXCSEss

Kat,

If your intention was to insult or offend, it fell a bit flat. But most of us would defend your right to do it. Since it's content-free, amply demonstrating how one can write even with sh@t for brains, some of us will wait until you have something half-sensible to write. Most of us won't give a toss but.

One of the corollaries of freedom of speech is that there is no law banning hypocrites or bigots, or fools, or drunkards - or even Stalinists, for that matter.

Joe

An excellent article but I'm not sure this is correct:

"As interpreted by the Federal Court, under s 18C the tendency of a statement to offend, insult etc is also judged objectively, but according its effect on the feelings of the hypothetical reasonable member of the relevant racial, national or ethnic group in the Australian community."

In Eatock v Bolt the offence was to be judged by the subjective feelings of the claimants. In other words the abolishment of the objective community standard which applies in defamation was compounded by the further subjectivity of the people so offended. There can be no defence to a subjective feeling of offence.

This is why S 18C must be repealed; it is against the community standards.

Oh Yair, Rhosty.

The measure of freedom of speech in Australia then becomes the thickness of the skin of some self appointed ethnic spokesperson with an axe to grind.