OK, Dr Bob, will we hear from you in this debate. Probably not.

Let me say firstly, I'm on middle ground here.

One thing that I have noticed in these Racist debates. If anyone puts forward any sort of argument for free speech they are immediately deemed a racist. This doesn't move the discussion forward. It immediately distorts the debate into a, "I can say anything I like but you can't," by the anti free speech side. So much for an even discussion.

Some people have a propensity to be offended by anything & everything because that's the way they are. Some people are always looking for things to be offended by, because they are permanent "Victims'." Some people use the, "I'm offended," stance to gain an advantage over the, "Free speech," side & shut down the discussion. I personally know a number of each of these types.

So, what type of debate are we going to have? One where the Free speech side is limited in what arguments they can put forward, while the anti free speech can say anything they like, with accusations of "Racist!" which is usually the case on OLO.

Let the games begin.

Dear Rob,
The marginalised and vulnerable covers pretty much everyone in the electorate, you mentioned minorities but in terms of putting their point of view in public minorities are automatically placed at the front of the queue my the mainstream media, it's called a "progressive stack".
Try going to the Age or the Australian and saying "I'm White, middle aged and male and my list of concerns is..."
Think of it this way, 18c gives protection to certain groups in Australian society but they are not governed by it but the majority of people are not protected by 18c yet we are governed by it.
You see the problem? A society can't function that way, no person from a "minority" can ever fall foul of 18c but they can use it to protect their interests and are allowed to speak freely and without limits no matter how offensive their words are. A person from the Ethnic White majority is liable to prosecution under 18c so we must limit the topics we address in public and the way we address them but we cannot use the racial discrimination laws to defend our own interests.
18c is a limit first of all on the political liberty of the Ethnic White majority because discussion of certain topics is always taken as being "in bad faith" or at least not in good faith.
The attitude of Anti Racists and minority activists basically boils down to "Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed!", anyone who doesn't agree with those privileged but not governed by 18c is branded a "Fascist" and the easiest way to "smash" them is with the human rights laws.

If you are going to argue for the "right to be heard" we can equally argue for the "right to not listen". Surely the rise of Web 2.0 means that it is much easier for minority interest groups to access a platform be it a blog, podcast or video. One only has to look at the latest Senate Voting papers to see how many more minority interest groups are being heard than say 50 years ago.

Spinoza said it best. "Every man should think what he wants and say what he thinks." He did not say every man has to listen to what any other man says.

I agree with the first two posts. The ones that espouse democracy take the opportunity to drown out the opinions of those with whom they disagree and then it is suggested that they do not get a free voice for their own opinions and that they are not heard sufficiently, so they stifle debate. None of them on last night's Q & A ever presented an argument against the fact that many Australians subsidise their education and who themselves derive no direct benefit themselves.

What a magnificent student protest on ABC's Q&A on Monday night. Tony Jones and the other members of the one percent were not amused. Get used to it Tony. This is what democracy looks like.

http://enpassant.com.au/2014/05/06/that-qa-protest-this-is-what-democracy-looks-like/

There's a rhetorical tautology at the centre of the pro 18c case which pans out as "Nations should be judged by the way they treat their minorities", that's why it's seen as socially acceptable to censor anyone from the Ethnic White majority who has the temerity to ask "What about us?".
The author also doesn't seem to understand how in-group supremacism as state policy works, it's all about creating different standards for different groups in society, elevating some and denigrating others to maintain the power base and economic interests of an elite and it's bourgeoisie.
I've taking to framing 18c as an artifact of "White Supremacism" in debates with it's supporters just to bait them but tactically it's important to point out that it's premised on in group-out group dynamics and is, if we may: "Classical Colonialism".