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?

What's happiness got to do with it? 18c was crafted to protect basic human rights of mostly marginalized minorities! Even so and within the parameters, it still allows robust civil debate and free speech! Those that have a problem with that, clearly have a problem with their manners? I grew up in very humble circumstances, went without many a mel. walked three mile to school barefoot on rough gravel roads in the dead of winter. Yet no matter how tough or humble those circumstances became, I was always brought up to believe common courtesy and civility cost nothing! Simply put, if the whole world accepted that as part of a code to live by, we'd likely abolish war, poverty and the abuse of civil/human rights?

I'd rather keep 18c and put our manners back in, than see us follow the American lead, with race riots, school shootings and other symptoms of entrenched xenophobia, racial intolerance and acceptable endemic entrenched enduring generational post code poverty; coupled to narcissistic nationalism?

Over here 18c would see Mr trump forced to curtail/moderate his horrific hate speech, diabolical disingenuous diatribe, and manifest mendacious malevolent mischief making and keep it down to a gentle roar!?

As for the usual suspects and those mostly in trouble with 18c, they'd likely stay out of hot water reporting the news rather than making it with scurrilous uninvited opinion, delusions of granduer and popinjay pomposity that regularly goes beyond the pale?

And the predictable pun was intended.
Alan B.

Loss of freedom of speech is a greater harm, with the consequent serious risks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Section 18C is a gag. It is the worst kind of censorship, where political correctness causes good citizens to self-censor.

What about the political correctness that turned a blind eye to the child abuses by Kashmiri offenders in Rotherham and other centres in the UK? Where the "institutionalised political correctness" had contributed' and "the Labour Party did let down in Rotherham, absolutely" and '"The Hindu Council UK and the Sikh Federation criticised media and government for referring to the criminal gangs involved as "Asian", claiming that political correctness is preventing them being described as "Pakistani Muslims"'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
and,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391314/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html

What about the political correctness that prevented police in Europe from even acknowledging the sexual molesting of women by Muslim men who are economic migrants?

"It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

Not so long ago, police were being criticised by the politically correct sections of the media for describing as 'aboriginal', the fleeing offenders who raped two young tourists and stole the car of who were overnighting in a city street. The publicly funded national broadcaster was loath to even mention the description lest indigenous be offended. However, all of the public including indigenous women were at serious risk of assault and murder while the offenders were at large. From a later report that describes the victims' cultural backgrounds but not that of their rapists,

"Terrifying ordeal at gunpoint: multiple rapes of European tourists, one suspect still unidentified"
http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2013/09/25/terrifying-ordeal-at-gunpoint-multiple-rapes-of-european-tourists-one-suspect-still-unidentified/

Who wants to return to the censorship of the Fifties and post-WW2 anyhow? What about the Australian political correctness of federal and State governments that emphatically denied for decades (and still does!), the very real, serious risks of introduction of criminal gangs through mass immigration?

Alan B,
QED and advantage to the "right wingers", your post demonstrates the problems with 18c, people like you see it as a way to control political debate and prevent people from challenging the status quo.
From a Nationalist point of view the only genuine problem with the law, the one David Leyonhjelm is trying to illustrate with his HRC complaint is that 18c and the human rights framework as a whole is not applied fairly and equally to all Australians.
Any law or a set of guidelines should apply to everyone equally, it should afford all Australians equal protections, 18c clearly doesn't do that so it's a bad law and unworkable in practice.
Why do you think there's such opposition to an Australian bill of rights among the political elites?

isn't it ironic that the Christ haters have mocked, blasphemed and continually ridiculed Christian belief now for 50 years. Our national broadcasters have been among the worst. Now they take up the cause of Islam. Yep secularism/Islam so much in common. Both death cults and based on hypocrisy, pseudo science and a hate for truth.

If you view any conduct that may reduce the happiness of another as unethical you should not seek advancement at work or engage in any business activity because that may harm competitors. The same reasoning would prevent you from seeking to marry a person who might be desired by some other person, or seeking election to public office.

The moral test should be about whether the conduct infringes the rights of others.

In terms of social norms it seems to me to be desirable to encourage people to draw a line in terms of their personal conduct to avoid giving offence gratuitously. That is a simple application of the golden rule. There is more social harmony when people generally seek to avoid giving offence to others.

In terms of what conduct should be legal, the requirement that conduct should not offend others is far too restrictive in my view. The law should not give people an incentive to pretend to be offended in order to seek legal redress for impolite behaviour.

Winton Bates,
True enough but we already have defamation and libel laws, when people were offended in days past they put a public notice in the newspaper demanding an apology from the alleged perpetrator and threatening legal action if none was forthcoming.
People used to do it all the time in the town where I grew up, it was amusing to get the local paper each week and read the notices, they usually ran to: "I Joe Bloggs accuse John Smith of spreading malicious rumours about my wife Jane Bloggs, Smith must desist from this conduct and make a written apology or the matter will be dealt with by my solicitors."

18C is a blatant oppression of free speech, and it should be abolished ASAP. Abbott now regrets that he didn't do it, and it is to be hoped that the new senate crossbenchers insist on having it removed.

Not surprised to see the bigots here wanting the freedom to insult and lie and harass other people.
Its what you do best.

Not abolishing 18c is what is immoral.

A law which prevents anyone bringing injustice out to the public gaze should never be permitted.

Dear Hasbeen,

Suppose there was a public park or arena where the rule said: "Everyone who comes inside is game. Inside this ring you may punch and kick each other to your heart's content, even to death".

Assume that this place was well-signed all around (including for the vision-impaired) so that nobody entered it by mistake; that nobody was forced to enter that area; and that no essential functions were held there.

Is it stupid to have such a place? YES.
Is it immoral to have such a place? NO.

Don't like it? Don't go there!

It is currently illegal in all public spaces to punch and kick others, even for the purpose of correcting an injustice.
Is that law immoral? No.
Is it a moral imperative? No.
What is it then? A public policy.

Don't like it? Stay at home!

However, the same is currently illegal even in all private spaces - and that is morally wrong.

If you agree for the "no punching and kicking" law to apply to your own premises as well, then bless you, that's very welcome and reasonable - but when the state applies such laws without your permission to your own premises, that's a morally-wrong violent trespassing - irrespective of the fact that punching and kicking others also happens to be [in almost every circumstance] morally wrong.

In conclusion, currently 18C defines:

«"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.»

This definition must be tightened to include only truly-public places rather than say, your own club or restaurant. Once fixed, you will be able to address any injustice to your own guests who expressed their willingness to hear you by visiting your premises. Apart from this I have no problem with 18C.

I would like to remind those who refer to people seeking abolition of 18c as bigots that their comments are offensive, and are particularly offensive to people whose national origins have led them to value free speech. Do they intend their comments to be contrary to 18c?

Let's not beat about the bush. The main supporters of 18C, are those whose religion exhorts them to kill infidels. It's amazing how such savages thinks it's OK to kill some people, but they are not tough enough to take a bit of verbal shellacking, the poor dears.

Peter Bowden says that freedom of speech is immoral if it hurts someone.

Sometimes, somebody says something which is so idiotic, it is breathtaking.

Isn't it just amazing the lengths that our trendy lefties will go to defend the crumbling edifice of multiculturalism? All we have to do to make multiculturalism work is to shut everybody up who criticises it. And to make it work, we must shut up anybody who heaps very justifiable criticism upon any minority group who's values, attitudes and behaviour definitely need some criticism.

Freedom of Speech is one of the bedrock foundations of secular western democracy. The only people who do not believe in it are totalitarian tyrants, the fundamentalist clergy of every religion, and now the left wing social justice warrior caste. It's funny how our SJ warriors like Peter now take common cause with tyrants and religious fanatics, and then claim that they are the ones being "moral."

The most interesting thing about fundamentalists of every stripe, is just how close their mindsets are. International Socialists, National Socialists, extreme Greens, extreme racists, religious fanatics of every religion, and unrepentant multiculturalists, all think exactly the same. They all think that whatever cause they are pushing, that they, and only they, are the keepers of the gate of all that is good and holy. Their opponents are not just wrong, they are evil. And whatever their opponents write or say, must be censored. This mindset kept the entire Soviet Union and eastern Europe in chains for decades.

How did you become so fundamentalist in your thinking, Peter? How can you claim any connection to liberalism if you demand that your political and social opponents must be silenced? And then incredibly, claim that your position is a moral one? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Inquisitors of the Inquisition all claimed that there particular positions were unchallengeably moral. Can't you see the connection in the way they thought, and the way you think?

Well, if you think that advocating censorship of social issues is the hallmark of an intelligent person, Peter, I vehemently disagree with you

Not harming others?

Huh...I made a complaint to one of the most leftist organisations in Australia about one of their advertisement that shows a man sitting on a chair, and that man is then hit so hard by someone else he is knocked off the chair.

This is an advertisement, and it is an advertisement for an arts show on that leftist TV channel.

I also made a complaint to another organisation about an advertisement where a man opens a cupboard, and is then continuously hit in the head by objects being thrown out of the cupboard.

The common link between these two ads...the person being hit is a white male.

I applaud the actions of David Leyonhjelm, who has objected to being called an "angry white male"

Anything can be said and done to "white male", and the 18c legislation is for anyone except "white male".

As for academics, they are the worst offenders of use of derogatory terms such as "old white male", but old white males have been very useful for universities, because they have supplied so much tax payer funding to universities.

Perhaps the terms "bigoted, racist, discriminatory university academics who leach money from the public" should be more widely used, as these terms would represent the majority of university academics.

J.O.M. Have absolutely no problem with a bill of irrevocable human rights! Or robust but essentially civil debate and irreverent free speech that stands the granny test, as not beyond the pale!
Cheers, Alan B.

The author claims that ' .... the moral theory of not harming others is the underpinning for the major social developments of the human race over history – the ending of feudalism, the abolition of slavery"

Rubbish: in the long struggle for equal rights and democracy, of course feudal lords and slave-owners were financially harmed, and quite rightly. The values for which peasants and abolitionists fought were won after very bitter struggles: the Thirty Years' War in Europe, and the US Civil War, were the most costly in human lives in both arenas. So the values which were so hard-won, against authoritarianism and inequality, are thereby even more precious.

Perhaps sections of our society devalue those hard-won achievements, usually known collectively as the 'Enlightenment'. Any better society has to be built on those values, not to set them aside in a petulant push for some new and ghastly form of totalitarianism.

A key achievement over a thousand years - in the West, at least - has been the right to free expression. Inevitably, this MUST mean the right to make people uncomfortable by expressing views which some people might find offensive or insulting, or exploit that pretext in order to enforce conformity. The conformists of today are quick to cripple free discussion. As Mikk exemplifies above,

"Not surprised to see the bigots here wanting the freedom to insult and lie and harass other people. It's what you do best."

No, Mikk, 'lie' and 'harass' have specific meanings in law, and you're not quite so stupid as not to know that. So your diversion from, and over-statement of, the issues are nothing more than the mark of an empty-headed bigot. Is that all you've got ?

Not that there is anything illegal about being a bigot. After all, how does one distinguish them from others, and who is to say ? Go for it.

Joe

Joe it all boils down to wanting to be an a hole to other people. Something I will never support.

Are you saying it is a good thing to be a bigot?
We should aspire to be bigots?
That we should look up to and laud bigots?
That we should teach our children bigotry?

Just in case you have forgotten what the word means.
bigotry
noun
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
synonyms: prejudice, bias, partiality, partisanship, sectarianism, discrimination, unfairness, injustice;

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=F7WzV67MA8HN8geS-LjIDw#q=bigotry

Well?

Hi mikk,

Oops ! I think you've already broken your own rule: " ..... it all boils down to wanting to be an a hole to other people. Something I will never support."

Who defines 'bigot' ? If it can't be identified in law, then it's not illegal. Not ice, but not illegal. But do your best, you're not doing too bad so far :)

But I'm glad you clarified its meaning: " .... intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."

Where would you fit on a bigot/non-bigot spectrum ?

I'm getting to think that a major battle is shaping up between free-speechers and totalitarians, in many strange ways. Funny, I've always thought of totalitarianism as something on the extreme-Right. After all, free speech was brutally punished in totalitarian systems, from fascist Italy (and admittedly Bolshevik Russia), through to Saddam's Iraq and today's China and Turkey.

So which side are you on, Mikk ? The side of power or the side of free expression ? Take your time :)

Joe

Loudmouth. You are not exaggerating the threat of totalitarianism when your insistence that freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy is libelled bigotry. There are very influential vested interests exerting pressure to retain 18C, but why are some posters who should know a bit of history be scared of open debate?

Hi Leslie,

I suppose one problem with discussing freely is that one has to know a bit of what one is talking about in order to rebut, or dispute somebody else's point of view, and it's a lot easier to simply insult someone, put them down, try to silence them that way. And, incidentally, probably breach Section 18 (c).

I have to admit to a remote and indirect interest in this topic, since it relates to a case in Brisbane right now. For some years, I managed an Indigenous student support program at a university campus, and worked at a couple of others, all here in Adelaide. We had a rudimentary computer centre too, half a dozen Amstrads. Remember Amstrads ?

What would I have done if I were Cindy Prior ? Let others use the centre, particularly if they were with Indigenous friends, and use the opportunity to blow in the ears of non-Indigenous students.

I suspect that the reverse was happening at that QUT campus - that Indigenous students were using the mainstream computer centres, as they are entitled to do, and that the Indigenous centres were usually vacant.

Another disclosure: Cindy worked here in Adelaide and a close friend worked with her at Flinders in student support. Enough said.

Anyway: judgement in that case is imminent. I hope it comes down on the side of common sense. And we all know what that is .....

Cheers,

Joe

Another baseless article by Peter Bowden, this time claiming that “morality” supports 18C.
He quotes works on morality, none of which show any immorality of freedom of speech, and none of which show any morality of section 18C.
It is the restriction by 18C on freedom of speech which makes it unacceptable, probably immoral, as a law of an advanced society.
It should be repealed without delay.

Peter Bowden has now morphed into the totalitarian endorsing and free speech hating demagogue he once so passionately fought against when he was young.

To Mikk.

If you do not support Freedom of Speech, you must be a bigot.

Hi LEGO,

I would unreservedly support Mikk's right to be a bigot, just like anybody else. I'll concede that, since his opinions differ from mine, then of course he MUST be a bigot, but that's his right in a democratic society which protects the freedom of expression, something very hard-won over many centuries, but now under threat from the totalitarians on the Right, on the extreme Right, and even further, on the opportunist 'Left'.

BTT: Perhaps, in discussions about 18 (c), the element of INTENT should have more salience: while I support the abolition of the words 'offend' and 'insult', the intent to humiliate or intimidate or incite violence should be illegal. The intent to offend, or the intent to insult ? Yeah, bugger it, we do that all the time - it's why some people enjoy OLO, after all.

The wonderful Bill Leak has demonstrated the social value of pushing the boundaries of 'intending to offend' and we should thank him for forcing our attention to a very grave issue, at the risk of hurting some people's feelings. But that begs the question: how on Earth can people be 'offended' at the exposure of the stark truth ? Isn't that what the situation was crying out for ?

Of course, that raises another issue: is the TRUTH a safeguard against penalties under Section 18 (c) ? Yes, there are many delicate flowers who can't bear the truth, and who would be offended by it over their lo-fat kale smoothies - who can't admit, say, to what horrors are going on out in the remote areas. Kids who don't dare go home at two in the morning ?! As my dear little old grandmother would have said, they can kiss my hairy arse.

Joe

Posted by Winton Bates, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:22:13 AM

" ... The moral test should be about whether the conduct infringes the rights of others. ... "

And in the absence of a Bill of Rights, what exactly are our rights?

" ... In terms of social norms it seems to me to be desirable to encourage people to draw a line in terms of their personal conduct to avoid giving offence gratuitously. ... "

I would say that there needs to be exceptions to this. For example, think of the case of child abusers in positions of power who are restricting the flow of pertinent information. If one needs to verbally abuse the abusers as one strategy amongst many in order to pierce the "veil of darkness" and draw people's attention to the grass roots reality of what is occurring then I would say that the ends justifies the means when special circumstances exist.

..

" ... In terms of what conduct should be legal, the requirement that conduct should not offend others is far too restrictive in my view. The law should not give people an incentive to pretend to be offended in order to seek legal redress for impolite behavior. ... "

Perhaps it could be linked with another condition, say for example what is illegal could be "insulting with a view to intimidate and or threaten" and not merely insulting.

Re the above section of quote again though I recall the guvment's response when the report from the Council of Churches stated that the treatment of children in detention constituted child abuse. They simply replied that it was offensive and neither they nor the media gave it due consideration.

I would also point out that Australia is a signatory to conventions such that "national security" or "secret squirrels" is not a defense to any accusation of human rights abuses or crimes against humanity. Any tin pot abusive regime can claim these things and regularly do.

Hi Joe.

What I was referring to was this odd bit of cognitive dissonance which social justice warriors like Mikk can never recognise. Mik thinks that anybody who has a different opinion to his own is a bigot, and he can not see that his attitude is bigotry itself.

Of course people have a right to be bigots, or racists, or multiculturalists, or socialists, or Nazis, or anything else. In western secular counties they are supposed to have a right to put their points of view on the table and discuss them and may the best argument win.

But what we saw in the Bill Leak cartoon was a self evident piece of truth. Everybody in Australia knows that the reason why so many aboriginal children are completely dysfunctional is because they have parents who are completely dysfunctional. These parents do not care if their kids go to school, behave themselves, or even if they are fed. That is the truth. But under 18C it is illegal to tell the truth or even pu8blish a cartoon which hints at the truth.

Some liberal Mikk is. He has become the very thing he once fought against when he was young. When did you sell out your liberal principles to conform to your utopian ideology, Mikk?

Hi Dream On
I don't think a bill of rights would be helpful. When we want to engage in conversations with other people we recognise their right to be treated with respect. We don't set out to offend them. That is just old fashioned politeness. There should be more politeness in public debate in my view.

However, attempts to legislate to protect people from being offended have had a chilling effect on public debate of some important issues because people have been able to close down discussion by claiming to be offended.

Your suggested amendments to 18c would be an improvement in my view, but I doubt whether an amended version of 18c is necessary to prevent threatening behaviour.

Posted by Winton Bates, Friday, 19 August 2016 10:26:01 AM

" ... I don't think a bill of rights would be helpful. ... "

Why, and if not something codified and straight forward, it still leaves the majority of the population ignorant (to one degree or another) of what exactly our rights are, does it not? Perhaps they should teach "rights & responsibilities" in the big world before they let the kiddies loose.

" ... When we want to engage in conversations with other people we recognise their right to be treated with respect. ... "

Do we? And where exactly does that right stem from? In asking that, as a general rule I do not disagree with you. However .. there are exceptions in my book and consequently, there are times when it is appropriate to set out to do more than just offend people.

" ... Your suggested amendments to 18c would be an improvement in my view, but I doubt whether an amended version of 18c is necessary to prevent threatening behavior. ... "

Perhaps someone who is versed in criminology or similar could enlighten us as to whether or not there is still any kind of victimisation which is occurring of a kind which 18c is trying to ensnare and which is otherwise falling through the net of pre-existing protections. Perhaps it could indeed be that 18c is really just superfluous?

Dream On,
It doesn't help to think of our individual rights as being granted by governments. Some governments recognise rights, but rights continue to exist even when governments deny them. Please read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, on this question: http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/second-treatise

Posted by Winton Bates, Friday, 19 August 2016 9:38:51 PM

" ... It doesn't help to think of our individual rights as being granted by governments. ... "

Doesn't it? And why not? If we consider that the prevailing majority wish to be represented by some form of government, to perform the functions that they want, then assuming that this same guvment is largely fulfilling the will of the people then it follows that the rights that we have at law are those rights that we want to have.

Unless of course for other reasons the majority are merely slavishly following their representatives.

As for your link, I had a quick look but it is not really my thing. Was there a particular point you were trying to make?

Tonmbee’s post is extremely apt. and decisive. He says ‘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’. But I question whether abolishing 18 c involves loss of free speech. At an extreme, it should only involve the loss of the right to "offend' and "insult." In any case, the right to free speech is not inviolate . We need to put many restrictions on free speech. The most clear-cut example of a limit on free speech is censorship, particularly in criminalising the dissemination of objectionable material, such as child pornography. Also inciting to terrorism

Peter Bowden

Old Man,
I do not follow your argument. Of course you should not be prosecuted for telling the truth. But your statements are proven. They are in the history books. Bolt's were not.He made accusations which were just that - unproven assertions . That is wrong .

JP says “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 I believe that the law should reflect a moral position. There are many laws that seem distant from this position. For instance , the legal requirements for listing on the stock market ,seem far distant from moral requirements. But , I suspect without exception, they are designed to prevent harm occurring to some other potential investor .That prevention of harm is a moral requirement

Peter Bowden

Winton Bates writes “ to reduce the happiness of another as unethical you should not seek advancement at work or engage in any business activity because that may harm competitors”. Competition, in sport, or the work place, is a mutually agreed field of human activity. It may, of course, cause an opponent to be harmed. If I have agreed before our boxing match that if you hit me and break my jaw, then that is OK. But if you hit me unexpectedly on the street, that is not OK. Similarly on a whole host of activities. If you sell a product that may be harmful (cigarettes ,for instance) and you do not tell me that it may be harmful, then that is immoral.

Peter Bowden

I've watched this topic evolve into something far more academic than simply a matter of common sense. I believe DAVID F and ONTHEBEACH earlier on had best described the impact of removing S.18c from the relevant statute, and that's precisely nothing.

We all live in a Nation that values 'free speech', that free speech applies to us all, not just one section or a minority, all of us without exception. As a retired detective sergeant, you can believe me when I say, there are certain small groups who can say literally anything, notwithstanding how hurtful, injurious, or threatening that may be. Yet should a copper, unintentionally describe somebody in a manner that's perceived as politically incorrect, well look out Commissioner of Police, a lawsuit is looming !

On another completely different note; Has anybody heard from our esteemed friend and colleague 'FOXY' ? The last I've heard, she was due to undergo another 'procedure' in Hospital ? I do sincerely hope she's OK and just taking a rest ? Furthermore, I've not heard from either POIROT or SUSEONLINE either ? POIROT has had a close family bereavement, of which she needed to deal with ? Although she's an immensely strong, pragmatic and intelligent lady, she's nevertheless human, and I do worry about her, as do others I'm sure. In fact I do like to verify that our highly valued trio of distinctly erudite ladies, are all well and life's treating them agreeably, we sure need 'em !

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.

Again, in my opinion, this clause is all about stifling free speech. The fact that the law seems to say:

.... "a manner that is REASONABLY LIKELY to “offend."

what a dead giveaway that is, I rest my case.

Try using education to achieve the aim of 18c not legislation.

I think the comments on your article have been helpful, Peter.
Your weird idea that repeal of 18C would not be moral gained little, if any, support.
Generally, the idea that it would be immoral for it to remain in force had major acceptance.
You apparently did not succeed in misleading anyone.

For Leo Lane.

I was surprised that you were so negative. No attempt to workthrough this issue.Only a negative comment.

So I looked up your last few posts . Your descriptions of the entries that you were commenting on were "weird; making a fool of yourself; mislead us; baseless, subversive thinking; etc. etc. ".,

Not one positive or supportive comment.

My goodness! Thank the Lord you had no influence on the world at the beginnings of human evolution. Otherwise we would still be up in trees.

Peter Bo
An interesting comment by you, distinguished by the fact that it was completely negative, without any trace of a constructive comment.
My post was carefully prepared, showing the immorality of the author in supporting immoral legislation which supplies a spurious ground for punishment of people who tell the truth, and denies them freedom of speech.
At some level, Peter Bo, you are aware of your negativity, but lack the moral fortitude or wit to recognise it, so you suppress it.
The inevitable result is that you project it on to someone else.
Your post describes your own state of mind, but you assert it to be a description of the state of mind of someone else.
Face up to yourself, Peter, and acknowledge the ridiculous futility of your assertions. and the reflection of your own unfortunate state of mind

Hi Leo,

There is a very comprehensive article in today's Australian (page 10) on this vital subject.

The problem that we are arguing about is right on the limits of restrictive legislation on one side, and the limits of free speech on the other. So of course, it is bound to cause a lot of heat in both directions.

Cheers,

Joe

Sorry - page 12.

Thanks, Loudmouth, I will attempt to access it, otherwise I will revert to the ever reliable Andrew Bolt.
I am sure that his negativity puts little Bo Peep beyond any hope of redemption. He will continue to support the reprehensible.

Hi cousin,

Yeah, I think that, on the one hand, freedom of speech is an absolutely cornerstone of modern democratic societies, and without it, we are on a very slippery slope to dictatorship. Does it have limits ? Of course, and there are laws against actions which go beyond it, laws against slander, libel, incitement to violence, obscenity, victimisation, etc.

But as Brendan O'Neill has declared, like them or not, we need to know what objectionable views are out there. We also need to understand or at least detect the signs of views which sort of creep up on us, nicely spoken, polite, but which contain the germs of a diminution of the rights of particular groups, particularly women, on religious, ideological or cultural grounds.

It's interesting, come to think of it: I don't even have to specify which religions or 'cultures' I'm talking about, or any of the vile ideologies that they spawn. But everybody is free to infer what is meant: free speech or not, we are all free to THINK. So do we keep our thoughts to ourselves, as in dictatorships, or should we be free to express them, as in democracies ?

Cheers,

Joe