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It should be repealed without delay.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