One of the very cornerstones of democracy, is and remains freedom of expression! And must include the right to offend!

All human progress has been won via the exchange of ideas, sometimes through heated,robust and passionate evocation.

As I understand it, 18c is aimed at limiting racial vilification, cyber bullying, racial profiling and the like; and is not liked by folks who think they're somehow entitled to engage in the same or seek to use positions of power to abuse, intimidate or just gag lawful dissent?

Albeit trying to have brand names outlawed because a decades old brand name (Dr Coon's cheese) has in more recent times been used as a common if ignorant colloquialism to describe some colored folk, is beyond the pale?

I'd have thought a more intelligent approach to the use of this term to describe some folk, would've been to inquire in humorous repartee, tasty, low fat, mature, vintage cheddar or old bitety, care for a nibble? I've some similar tasting toe jam if that's more to your liking, but clearly an acquired taste?

That said, we probably would not be having this discussion if we had a bill of irrevocable rights which among other things guaranteed the freedom of speech, which can never ever include slander or entirely unfounded accusations of evil doing etc!

As evidenced in some of the spurious mudslinging that can and sometimes does, destroys reputations, careers and assassinates good character.

At the end of the day we need to hold the cowards that abuse the freedom of parliament to knowingly and falsely impugn the character and reputations of political opponents, simply because they cannot match them intellectually or in policy creation, to lawful account!

And given all that is so, we need to keep 18c and indeed the intentions of the wordsmiths who crafted it?
Alan B.

Yes,yes,yes Allan B, but there is money in them thar hills. So 18c fails dismally .

Hi Alan,

Jeez, some of us pre-Boomers would have killed for some toe-jam. If we behaved, our dad used to allow us to use some of his.

Enough disgusting for one day :)

Pushing back the limits imposed by S.18C etc., I would suggest that the use of terms such as 'humiliate', 'ridicule', etc. should be restricted to the actual comments someone has made, rather than to the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the maker: nobody should be able to cry 'Breach !' merely because their opinion is trashed.

And, as in standard legal cases, if someone asserts that there has been a breach of S.18C, or its replacements, then they should have to demonstrate such a breach, and in good time. It should never be up to an accused to have to disprove such a charge. For example, in this ridiculous case of a university staff member ordering students out of an 'Indigenous-only' computer room at QUT, the staff member would have to demonstrate conclusively that what she did had been ridiculed on the basis of her Indigeneity or ethnicity, not just because her actions seemed arbitrary, unnecessary and sheer bloody stupidity.

Mmmmm, just thinking of that toe-jam ;)

Joe

s 18C is deliberately aimed at causing the media, authors and the general public to hesitate to offer an opinion and to self-censor.

That is the very opposite of the free speech Australia claims to enjoy.

A very bad law indeed, and Abbott should never be forgiven for reneging on his 'promise' to repeal it. Now, with both major parties left-wing sooks, we are stuck with the obnoxious law until, if, we ever again have politicians with a realistic, not PC, outlook on reality.

Joe, you are living proof that common sense is anything but common! Cheers, Alan B.