I for one am happy with the moral principle that prevention of harm to others should guide our actions. But accepting that principle does little or nothing to resolve issues around free speech and the offence it might bring. The principle must in some way be quantifiable in order to be applicable. How much harm to one person or group? How much benefit to others? Surely this is the moral equation in arguments about 18C.

I value free speech. It has been argued, and I agree, that free speech has been an engine for human progress. Even so, I would give up some of my free speech rights if commensurate benefits to others could be demonstrated. There are three elements in deciding the balance: the harm to the individual from feeling offended; the harm to the minority group to which the offended person belongs; and the broader harm to society due to loss of free speech. In this balance, individual offence should be given a trivial weighting. It is actually a proxy for the second and much more important harm, which drives the human rights agenda and is arguably the real basis for 18C. Personally I would give up some of my rights to free speech if I was sure it would help the minority group’s progress. Trouble is, the evidence is just not there.

David Leyonhjelm’s case will probably fail because offence to his person will simply carry no weight. He doesn’t belong to a disadvantaged minority group. The irony here is that failure should actually strengthen the case for abolishing 18C. Offence will stand out as a useless, even counter-productive, reason for curbing free speech.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to act in a manner that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

Being offended, insulted or humiliated is not the same as being discriminated against. Being intimidated is a kind of discrimination since you are actually prevented from doing something.

A non-Christian may feel offended, insulted or humiliated by a Christian saying, “Jesus is Lord.”

Although I am not a Christian I think a Christian has a perfect right to say "Jesus is Lord" as long as he or she doesn't break into my house and force me to listen. I would modify 18c by removing the words 'offended, insulted or humiliated'. That leaves only the word 'intimidated'. If one intimidates a person one must have harassed that person. However, incitement and harassment are offences under English common law so I see no need for 18c. All that is necessary is for prevention and penalties for incitement and harassment. Police must be trained to act upon those offences. 18c is unnecessary..

Laws are not a moral requirement, so it is never immoral to repeal a law, even if the said law is designed to prevent harm and acting contrary to it harms others. Many actions remain immoral even if they are legal.

Nevertheless, it is permissible to legislate such laws which prevent harm to those who seek the protection of the law.

18C is a mixed bag: on the one hand it legitimately protects those who so wish against offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation in the public sphere. If people voluntarily leave their own premises and enter the public space, then they have no right to complain about the laws there.

On the other hand, 18C's definition of "public" is far too broad and currently also includes private spaces where the affected people may have never wished to "enjoy" the protection of the law.

Whether or not 18C as a whole remains is a political question and both options are moral - however, it is immoral to keep the too-inclusive definition of "public" within that section.

On 2GB listeners were warned that the ISLAMIC leaders in Australia are trying to get ISLAM recognized as a RACE rather than as a RELIGION so that it would come under the protection of 18C.

The problem is that in a materialistic universe, there is no particular way that the universe should be or is meant to be.

Mill and the Dalai Lama can say as much as they like that we shouldn’t harm each other but if some people believe that it can be to their advantage to harm others there is no compelling reason for them not to do so, Mill and the Dalai Lama notwithstanding.

So really all we have to work with is law and not morality per se. Whoever can get the numbers to introduce a law that they happen to like can use the power of the state to enforce it and they can even pretend that it represents a moral position. But it doesn't.

Peter, do you believe there is such a thing as truth?

Should a government pass legislation which allows or even requires a person to be penalised for telling the truth?

It is true that Mohammed defeated a tribe of Jews, beheaded every male, and sold all females and children into slavery(if you believe the Arabic texts (ahadith, plural, hadith singular)).

It is true that the Koran specifically authorises the killing of prisoners of war who will not convert. That is straight translation, not "interpretation".

It is true Mohammed "married" a girl Aisha when she was six and "consummated" the " marriage" when she was nine.( ahadith)

It is therefore true that if Mohammed were alive today in Australia he would be in gaol as a paedophile and a war criminal.

By making these statements I am not doubt offending many people. Should I be prosecuted for telling the truth?