Nice piece, Ms Pringle.

A neat exposé on the cant and hypocrisy that passes for political discourse these days.

While my own views on the free speech tend towards freedom, the posturing of the Brandis of this world does nothing to advance its cause. In lieu of a sober debate on the issue of thin-skinned victimhood vs. deliberate misanthropic bigotry, we have nothing but polarized duckspeak.

I'm not quite sure what this article is about. Inasmuch as I think I do understand it, the key point for me is not whether Voltaire said something or didn't (I'm pretty sure that the aphorism was the invention of his biographer, as she claimed). The dreadful problem about freedom of speech is that it means nothing if one wants simply to speak in favour of the current political correctness, whatever it is. It is only meaningful when the free speech challenges the orthodoxy.

I'm not much in favour of the current orthodoxy, especially the bit that says that we somehow have a right not be offended by others. It is a mechanism to shut people up. For what it's worth I wasn't much in favour of the orthodoxy when it was all about anti-Communism, either.

My two-bobs' worth on this subject can be seen at www.donaitkin.com

Helen, I have heard something similar, which seems to have originated from an American senator, and was reported as; I disagree with everything you say, but would lay down my life to protect your right to say it, when arguing for the fifth amendment?
I can't remember the name of the senator, given it was something I heard in part of a dramatized documentary decades ago.
Perhaps it is just one of those sayings, which someone heard somewhere and then sort to own it?
It does have shtick, and a good place to locate our right to freedom of expression, or retain the right to offend.
Offense is often that which can be misunderstood in one culture, and just passing the time of day inquiry in another!?
Or a misunderstanding between Billionaires?
I believe Andrew Bolt had a right to question the Aboriginal origins of the women he was drawing unwanted personal attention to?
And what he said is something any reasonable but outspoken person might have also said?
I believe it's really not too different in interpretation, than a person claiming a military history, when they were just weekend warriors, who never fired a shot in anger?
Or people collecting disability support, when still patently able bodied.
Should we have a right to report, when they were seen loading very heavy furniture or some such? Or marching with a chest covered in bogus medals?
They could claim as many might do, they felt injured, courtesy of a temporary mental deficiency? Or felt like real bona fida soldiers?
And that could be a legitimate defense, in these hypothetical cases, given the precedent now created?
I believe the women highlighted, perhaps unfairly, could clear this matter up for all time, with a simple DNA test!
Perhaps Andrew Bolt's employer would stump up any reasonable costs involved!
And should that DNA test validate the Ladies' claims, Andrew Bolt could make a front page Mia Culpa apology and spend a couple of weekends cutting the grass of aged disabled pensioners!
Rhrosty.

Who the !*(# cares whether it was Voltaire or not.
It's the *meaning* that matters.

As usual the Looney Leftist completely misses the point.

Dr Pringle. Your flashy intellect seems to have placed ex-VC Aitkin and several retired professors at a disadvantage; and confused one respondent into mistaking you as a looney lefty. Could you please enlighten us, and explain in one sentence your attitude to 18C and free speech.

I agree with Brandis. In a free society a person has a right to have any opinion and to express any opinion with few limits. One limit is when it creates a clear and present danger such as inciting a lynch mob. That type of speech is an offense under common law as it is incitement. Harassment is also an offense under common law. police should be trained to recognise instances of incitement and harassment.

However, I favour repeal of all defamation and antivilification legislation. Libel laws recognise truth as a defense against accusations of libel, and libel laws can be reasonable. Truth is not a defense against accusations of defamation, and defamation laws are not reasonable.

No one should be able to shut somebody up solely on the grounds that they are offended by someone else's speech. I am offended by many of the sentiments expressed on olo. However, I should not have the right to shut anybody up because I am offended. I have the right to ignore, answer, complain to Graham or leave. Since this is a private forum Graham has the right to limit people's speech. In a public forum no one should have that right except in cases of incitement and harassment.

I, like Don Aitkin, had to work to locate your point here. Whilst Shockadelic my have confused which part of the political 'spectrum' Helen resides, his/her comment is cogent to the argument on 18c.

As Leslie observes, your 'flashy intellect' could be used to illustrate your point in a less prolix fashion?

Of course it doesn't matter who said what in the 18th century or whenever. So what does matter? In my opinion, the one thing that has clearly emerged from the current round of debates is that attitude to free speech and how far it should go is nothing more than a matter of opinion. Appealing to a 'higher authority' from which to derive some kind of proof for one’s opinion is a futile exercise. And, in my opinion again, appealing to a higher authority via some kind of definition or declaration of a 'right' is even more futile. 'Right' has become the weasel word par excellence, of ever diminishing value.

So, if it's just a matter of opinion, whose opinion is to count. The majority's of course. That's where we are living now.

Having said that, let me defend my personal opinion, which may or may not be that of the majority but which is worth exactly the same as the good Dr Pringle's (in my opinion, that is). After all, I too have a PhD and a solid record of publication etc., etc. What's more, I have frequently been vilified, as a refugee, an 'ethnic' Jew and probably lots of other things. I was even vilified the other day by an Orthodox Jew and it was pretty scary. Dr Pringle may be able to beat my record; I just don’t know, though her article here may score her a few ticks. As a child I guess I was offended, or even scared, but as an adult I have to say there are many other things that offend me much more deeply. So, I am least as qualified as Dr Pringle to have a view on free speech, racial or religious insults, and the whole shebang. And my view is that 18C ought to go out the window lock stock and barrel.

So what if Voltaire didn’t actually say those words. Helen misses the point. The power of the phrase does not rest on an appeal to authority, assuming it must be true because Voltaire said so (who nowadays knows or cares much about Voltaire anyway?). The phrase has resonance because is encapsulates an important principle in a vigorous and memorable aphorism. Marie Antoinette didn’t actually say “let them eat cake”, but it remains a powerful distillation of aristocratic disdain and ignorance of the lot of poor folk.

I’d be much more impress if Helen engaged with the substance of the phrase, not its origins. At least she linked to the Spectator article – well worth a read.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that Helen says, but I'll defend whatever she says, provided it does not incite violence.

Christ, what a bunch of limp-d!cks. I've lived in Aboriginal communities where the boundary between abuse and violence is somewhat casual. Some of the kids went through a phase of calling me 'Red-hole', which made them feel real good, superior, powerful. The boys were nearly as cutting. Some of them were as pale as I was, so I don't know if they had checked the details of their own physiology. Ridicule was a daily occurrence anyway. One woman swore at another about her flouting her melons. 'Better than your lemons,' the other one replied. Quite witty really. Two sisters, by the way. Abuse, especially over a weekend, used to give way rapidly to a sort of ritualised invitation to extreme violence, which was eagerly answered. God, I wish I'd kept a journal.

To all OLO participants: please feel free to offend or insult me at any time, if I should ever say anything remotely worthy of comment and/or attack.

Joe

We put far too much importance on the pontifications of dead white dudes anyway. I guess it takes our mind of having to put so much importance on the pontifications of living white dudes.

18C is a farce, but resistance is futile. The Global Accords on the New World Order of Absolute Planetary Homogeneity has many more horrors in store for us. This proposal from the EU could actually get passed in the near future:
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

Basically, it's a 12-page document from the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation outlining the proposed criminalisation of about 1000 things people might say that won't be either tolerated or reconciled with.

I love the line about << dead white dudes>> or more usually, old white male authors or politicans.

It's both funny haha like and funny Twilight Zonish, because I have found that so many of those spouting it are post menopausal white females who physically and mental appear to be clones of Germaine Greer.

I'm a drunk and I find your denigration of drunks offensive. I think section 18c should be invoked and you and your denigration of us drunks should be muzzled.

Apologise to us alcohol abusers you abuser.

Helen,
You write quite well and you seem somewhat well educated in both academic and non-academic disciplines – I quite liked your ‘stand by your man’ and ‘je ne regrette rien’ references- but your whole article seems to be a bit of a storm in a tea cup.
OK so Brandis misunderstood the Mill quote ‘the only limitation on the freedom of the individual should be when he causes harm to others’. That is said in the context of the state preventing people from possibly doing harm to themselves, not defining harm as physical, tactile harm or loss of property done to others. But he was quoting a respected writer who did at other times defend free speech.

It is very wrong to place words into the mouths of someone of respect that definitely shouldn’t be there, and also wrong to misinterpret what people do say, but even though Voltaire apparently didn’t give that line, it appears, according to researcher Evelyn Beatrice Hall that it was something he would have said. Is it really that wrong as long as you imply it is apocryphal?

When I’m feeling maudlin sitting at the bar after too many beers because my girlfriend has run off with a hero resistance fighter and I tell the pianist “play it again Sam”, does it matter the piano player’s name is not Sam, he has not been playing “As time goes by”, and that the original Ric Blaine didn’t even say that actual line?

Helen. I could not care less who actually said "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

You rambled on for nine paragraphs rejoicing in the barely interesting observation that George Brandis thought it was Voltaire. Wow, Helen. What has that got to do with your support of political censorship?

When did you sell out your liberal, social progressive ideal,s which most definitely included free speech, and turn into the very sort of political reactionary advocating political censorship that you once reviled in your youth? When did this remarkable transformation happen, Helen? Did your Socialist/multicultural values become so part of the establishment mainstream that you now decided that your state supported ideology must not tolerate any critics?

Looks like you have come full circle in your ideals. You must be feeling like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis knowing that you are violating your own social progressive, liberal ideals. Aren't educated social progressives supposed to be the defenders of free speech? What other ideals are you prepared to compromise with because you know that your ideology is the only one that can Save the World?

Your inability to write an article justifying your new belief in political censorship, and instead simply commenting on trivia, is emblematic of the turmoil your Id is suffering under.

Turn away from the Dark Side, Helen. Any ideology which must resort to censorship to fend of it's critics is not worth a cracker. If you consider yourself an intelligent, thinking person, then you had better acting like one, instead of adopting the values and tactics of an ideological zealot.

Edward Carson

Like your point about Casablanca. As with Rhian's point about 'Let them eat cake', you have to wonder how all these Chinese-whispers fallacies and urban/academic myths become so entrenched in public discourse.

Like ... no feminists ever burned their bras, Darwin never wrote 'survival of the fittest' and the Aussie warmonger's most beloved Anzac, i.e. Simpson of donkey fame, was a Wobbly socialist-pacifist.

However, it's always a good idea to have regular reality checks like these, not just to nitpick and show off, but to examine how our real history gets repeatedly hijacked by the mythmakers, who are invariably promoting the vested interests of the powerful.

Helen,
Speaking of misinterpreting what people say, you may well be guilty of it yourself. At the end of your article you have the line “To many people, the Brandis shtick reads like this: 'I approve of what you say, and I will defend your right to say it'.” A funny line, but is it the truth?

The irony of attributing this to Brandis is that this line is pretty much what the supporters of 18C actually say themselves. “Of course I believe in freedom of speech, but it must not be used as a licence to spread hatred”. Or, “Yes I believe in freedom of speech, but of course not for those whose agenda is to vilify those because of their religion or race.”
It is they who deserve the humorous variation of the famous Voltairesque quote because they are effectively saying they believe in freedom of speech, but only for those “acceptable” speakers, which obviously is a totally meaningless statement. Who would want to censor acceptable speakers?

It is very unfair to attribute this hypocritical, cowardly action to Senator Brandis, considering he did have the courage to actually stand up and speak for the unpopular ones amongst us, the bigots, who, believe it or not, also deserve basic human rights.
Revocation of 18C is becoming known as the ‘Andrew Bolt amendment’ because that is the most recognizable way to identify it, not because only conservative commentators could benefit from it.