Well said, Brendan, particularly your closing proposition:
"Freedom of expression should be one of the most basic human rights of all. Currently, many people are reluctant to speak out in politically correct debates, and feel that they can only hold an unfashionable view in private."

Unless you agree to be 'one of the mob' there should be no differences between how you express your views in private, compared to what you say in public.

Much political correctness is hypocrisy - a willingness to conform, and its intent needs to be scrutinised.
Thanks to articles such as Brendan's this is happening, but the scrutiny should be more widespread.

oh dear

PC advocates talk up the virtues of Islam to the point of denying any links with terrorism, sometimes vilifying those of contrary view.
how about

PC advocates talk up the virtues of Catholicism to the point of denying any links with terrorism, sometimes vilifying those of contrary view.

Remember the troubles? the fact that religion is used to motive people on what is largely grabs power is nothing new. Oh and this view isn't a left or right thing you'll find many on the right with longer memories who think the same.

Translated, "back in the good old days we could call women whores and sluts in public, Abos as sub-human scum, pooftahs as .. well pooftahs who should die".

Because that that is what these people really mean when they say 'political correctness has ran wild'.

I always challenge such people to state for the record 'what do you think you are not allowed to say'?

One problem these people have is that many of their so called 'opinions' (translated bigotry) have been refuted by scientific facts.

Take this example:
"There is PC pressure to only discuss homosexuality in a positive light (viewed as part of normal behaviour). A form of moral blackmail (promoting the prospect of LGBTI suicides) was used to help bring about the abandonment of the same-sex marriage referendum."

But the real facts are, apart from the impacts of discrimination and prejudice, LGBTI people have been proven to be just the same as anyone else, as just as good (or bad), make just as good citizens and parents and all the rest. To say otherwise is disproven and debunked bigotry.

And it was proven that mental health stress rose when horrible vilification increased (suicide help lines reported a huge increase)over the marriage equality so called 'debate'.

Let me remind people that that 'debate' included calling LGBTI people paedophiles, rapists, child abusing parents, sick, deluded and all the sorry rest.

So what does he not feel free to state except outright disproven debunked lies?
Because in the end that what it comes down to, wanting the 'right' to lie about and vilify people that they are prejudiced against and them not being able to answer back.

It is a form of cowardly bullying they want, to be able to harm people, stir up prejudice even violence ..with no come back on them.

Because people like that do not like people arguing back at them, they clutch their pearls and scream 'I'm being bullied and censored'. Just like every bully does when people fight back.

The debate about the role of women in combat positions in the military has effectively been shut down by a combination of political correctness, decisions by politicians, and military discipline both here and overseas (despite dissent from many eminent current and former military personnel).

Well that's based on the generally universal idea that women should be treated equal to men and should have the same rights as men. The debate has been shut down it's more like that for the majority of us we position is the only logical position to take. If someone is physically capable of doing the job then why would it matter what their gender is?

If you want to argue that women should be treated differently to men then you'll need to come up with a really good reason.

It is considered poor form to make anything other than positive comments about women and designated disadvantaged groups. A form of (PC) reverse sexism has led to publicly sponsored ads and campaigns commonly presenting men negatively, while simultaneously presenting women either in positive roles or as victims of male behaviour.

I agree, but the answer isn't to go on the attack, we need to remind all that stereotyping people based on superficial factors such as race or gender is wrong and counter productive.

There is token (PC) use of sign language in public sector media events, despite most TV being subtitled, and there being only 9723 Auslan speakers recorded in the 2011 Census.There is an element of prohibition on humour concerning some PC topics (remember Alexander Downer and the "things that batter" joke).

Not sure were to start, how about I've only seen the use of sign language when there is a live news event generally for natural disasters. do you believe that deaf people should have to wait for the captioned version?