Much of the 'freedom of speech' and PC griping has been used by big 'C' Conservatives and nativists to stir things up, and also close down debate and analysis e.g. what do conservatives and nativists actually want, or want to say, apart from nasty things about minorities or anything they don't like? This is clouded out by constantly focusing upon what they 'don't like' aka Hanson, and recall Morrison feeble attempt at being the vicitim claiming he'd been called nasty things on Twitter.....

At another level, well understood by PR, pollsters, advertising, mainstream, alt media and political elites owned and nobbled by the establishment neo-lib elites, is that these issues help encourage puerile primary school yard like behaviour and raising of the emotions. On the other hand, mostly conservative and nativist elites squeal rather loudly if anyone ever calls them out, and then they play the victim, pot/kettle black?

Meanwhile, while the focus is upon what libertarian P J O'Rourke describes as cultural issues, the establishment elites carry on untroubled, real or functional policies on economics, taxation, infrastructure, health care, negative gearing etc. are ignored or buried, while also debasing govt. and politics.

Outcome after decades of conditioning are people of all political hues focused upon the self, wants, desires and fears; versus needs of an inclusive, relaxed and comfortable society through good govt. policy.

As Frontline said all those years ago on 'playing the race card' another cultural issue, it's about 'dividing the electorate and multiplying the vote'; while via character of Mike Moore displayed ignorance of racial dog whistling, representing too many of our often ageing media, political and business elites.

There is an aspect to the stifling of free speech that's generally legal, quite hard to argue against specifically but in my view troubling in the way can impact on the ability of some views to be aired in the public square.

Its the targeting of companies which advertise in media outlets which also publish views (whether as an editorial view or as part of covering a range of views).

Reading this morning that Lego wasn't be advertising in one major British outlet anymore and from what I could tell it read as though Lego had been the subject of a secondary campaign to pressure them not to do so because of the papers stance on child refugees.

Some time back as I understand it OLO advertisers were targeted in a campaign to try to get them to stop advertising on the site because views were published here which some in the same sex equality lobby did not want to be aired. In my view OLO has been outstanding in allowing competing view points to be aired. It also allows those view points to be challenged and dissected. In my view a far healthier option than attempts to suppress view points and create echo chambers.

R0bert

Toni , firstly I haven't used the anal sex issue in relation to gay marriage, it has been in relation to teachings in the Safe School program, with people automatically assuming I am a homophobe, instead of someone worried about health issues in young girls.
However, you are missing my whole point. Of course I don't expect people to automatically agree with me. I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I enjoy verbal sparring and I welcome any rational and reasoned debate on any topic.
What I'm referring to is not rational opposition, it's the spewing of total hatred and abuse towards anyone who doesn't have the same beliefs, the insulting labelling in an attempt to shut down people who want an educated discussion on important issues.
It's the verbal version of the riots and tantrums currently being thrown by the left because Trump won.

Bren,

If it was an attempt to "silence" Bolt, he certainly made a lot of noise about it in his newspaper column, his TV and Radio programmes and his Blog.

Nine people complained and it was found he contravened the Racial Discrimination Act because he stated that ALL fair skinned (ie not black enough looking for him) aboriginals were "in it for the money".
In particular there were four newspaper columns that were deliberately targetting specific individuals under the same accusation.

It's like me calling him "a typical lying and biassed opportunist" as one thing but if I called him "a typical Dutch lying and biassed opportunist" it can be be seen as racial vilification against Dutch people.

In addition it was found he deliberately ignored all the evidence (that he knew) that contracted his published views and he thereby distorted the truth to push his personal agenda against specific individuals and an entire racial group.

It's a pity the complainants didn't request financial compensation as well as an apology.

It's nothing new for Bolt's style but it was the first time he was called out over it.

I suppose there are some people who want to protect the ability of him and others to do more of the same without fear of challenge.

Well here is something to really worry about.
In the Canadian Parliament;

"Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but
rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum.
Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
unquote
It is their intention to take it further with the Canadian government
to make criticism of Islam illegal. There is a world wide movement to
ensure that any criticism is illegal.
How long before this argument appears in 18c hearings.

http://tinyurl.com/hu2zxny

Islamophoboia uses the suffix phobia ie an irrational fear as a way
of stopping free speach about Islam and terrorism.
A defence should be that the fear is not irrational. Islamists argue
that Islam is of peace and the terrorists are not Islamists.
Might be hard to deny that defence to a Frenchman.

//What I'm referring to is not rational opposition, it's the spewing of total hatred and abuse towards anyone who doesn't have the same beliefs, the insulting labelling in an attempt to shut down people who want an educated discussion on important issues.//

Nah, that can't be right. Because by that definition, runner is the most politically correct man who ever lived.