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.