To say there is no such thing as censorship in 2014 is simply wrong.
Those interested in the truth of the matter need look no further than the linked article in Graham Y's post above.

Halduell,
That's not censorship, it's democracy in action,democracy is the rule of the mob or rule from the streets, mobs are led by demagogues and they normally initiate the use of force tactically rather than strategically.
The Twitter mobs are actually undermining the undemocratic laws which censor speech in this country, the anti discrimination laws are quite clear on what is permitted and what is not and bullying a person or group because of their personal opinions or beliefs is not allowed. It's also illegal to sack someone for holding personal views or opinions and I wonder what it's going to cost Opera Australia when Tamar Iveri takes them to court?
The conflict here is between an un-democratic state and legal system existing in the physical world trying to oversee a populace who inhabit a completely separate, "virtual democracy" with no set rules or codes of conduct.
Do you understand what I mean? The state and the people are operating in two different worlds or two different countries if you will, one is physical, the other virtual.
The organisations featured in the article could simply ignore the Twitter mobs and nothing further would happen because the 20,000 "likes" or re-tweets really means nothing in the physical world, the likelihood of any actual adverse consequences if FODI or Opera Australia simply said "no comment" is extremely remote.
I guess it's mostly older people who run these organisations so they don't understand how the internet and particularly social media work, it's all basically a game to most of us, my posts for example are loaded with talking points and phrases geared to the way google searches operate more so than the way a normal face to face discussion might occur.

Here's how so called hashtag activism can be corrupted or steered toward a particular end:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/end-fathers-day-and-feminist-troll-accounts

A well-written article. It highlights particularly the fatuous attention-seeking of the self-described Festival of Dangerous Ideas that it firstly proposed such a provocative title and then promptly crumbled at the predictable backlash. Badar is the only winner from this farce.

"For most of recorded history parents have reluctantly sacrificed their children – sending them to kill or be killed for the honour of their nation, their flag, their king, their religion. But what about killing for the honour of one's family? "

"Notwithstanding the rather academic prose, this sounds like a potentially interesting debate.."

Actually it isn't, since Badar is begging the question, (1) he either, unconsciously or deliberately attempts to equate the nation state with a patriarchal family. The reasons for which people went to war in past conflicts are irrelevant to the citizens of a modern liberal democracy, they are not 'sacrificed' by their parents. (2) families don't live or breath, they have neither honour nor rights.

There is no free speech obligation in a democracy to provide a platform for morally repugnant views or to treat those opinions with any respect whatsoever, Badar is a propagandist, not a debater.

Your article is clear and the message simple. Agreed on all.

If the talk had a less provocative title......
If our society was more tolerant of hearing 'dangerous ideas'......
Who gains?

Shut down, prevented, won't happen

I am close to this topic and can provide real evidence of challenged opinions changing lives for the better to breed tolerance across cultures, religions and gender.

Have we missed an opportunity? or is this whole show a dog-whistle?

Indeed, why the outrage now?
Perhaps it's because we are just finding out, this outrage is actually happening, and not just a fiction put about, to somehow disgrace Islam?
The Koran expressly forbids the spilling of innocent blood and to paraphrase, states unequivocally, there is no place in paradise for those who do so!
It also states in non-revised editions, that Jihad, is a personal internal struggle.
If we think that the crusades and their methods, were beneath all contempt and Gods laws!
Why then would any true believer, seek to emulate them?
A person, any person must remain free to choose his or her religious beliefs; but not free to seriously revise or reinterpret them!
And given in some cultures, a women need only be accused of infidelity, before being summarily murdered!
There's a lot that needs to be fixed, just by spreading the true unedited word, as opposed to those, who have revised it beyond recognition, for nefarious/evil or inhumane or insane power hungry purposes?
And that critique may be applied to virtually all religions, but particularly those, that have morphed into absolutely controlled cults!
If a stone is thrown into a pond, there is just no way it cannot cause ripples, or a cause and effect reaction!
Similarly, when a so called holy edict is revised, it simply ceases to be a holy edict.
If it is God's word to begin with, then God just doesn't make mistakes, no matter what some pulpit pounding preacher contends!
No mortal man has the right to do so; yet, given the almost endless revision, many obviously have.
If you have no religion no belief, then simply believe in the almighty irrefutable truth.
And that almighty truth tells us that murder by any other name, is still murder; and that there is absolutely no honour whatsoever, in murder!
And there is only one possible outcome or ultimate destination, according to holy law, for those servants of Satan, who commit it!
Rhrosty.