All good stuff. The defamation laws are restrictive but do guard personal rights reasonably well - I never saw why race or groups had to be dragged into it, especially as there was no epidemic of declarations of racial hatred. Quite the contrary. The framers of 18C weren't reacting to anything, it was just to keep the human rights academics/activists happy.

Thanks for the article, Graham. I will though, disagree with the previous/first comment... the defamation laws are hopeless, because it costs too much for people like me to attempt to defend themselves in the courts. I was defamed by the ABC's Media Watch, and again in the Sydney Mornging Herald. In the case of the SMH the Press Council recommended the SMH at least publish a reply from my by way of OpEd - but so far they have avoided even that.

Anti-racist laws are condescending. They assume that non-white people have an inferior capacity to deal with racist slurs than have white people. They assume that non-white people are more prone to offence than white people. They are more sensitive or lack the interpersonal skills that whites have.

This kind of attitude is far more racist than the average ‘slur’ or insult and is actually entrenched in law by legislation such as 18C. Non-white people should be outraged at this and white people should be up in arms at this patronising stance of those who are promoting such attitudes.

It re-enforces all the negative attitudes that non-white kids might take on board. They grow up convinced that there is something profoundly lacking in their make-up which is not lacking in white people. It is systemic racism which permeates the whole of the society and those responsible for legalising it should be named and shamed for their racism.

Yes, i would like to see the courts recover wasted funds, the likes of that woman who sued the students for entering a 'non signed' computer room.

There is little doubt, had she had to self fund that case it would never have started. Waste, waste and more waste, of not only courts time, but tax payer funds.

Shorten as a trade union official, must have gained some glimmerings of labour history which shows that coercive laws to suppress opinion are effective as a deterrent. His statement can only be regarded as gross opportunism.
Phanto. Champions of 18C ignore the ironic contradiction that, ideologically, it involves a form of stereotyping, namely, the patronising claim that there are entire “minority” groups all of whose members are “vulnerable” or “marginalised” or “victimised” and so lacking in courage and conviction as to be quite unable to withstand criticism (“hate speech”) pertaining to their group identity. And usually associated is the no less patronising assessment of all those who do not belong to one of the groups whose feelings are said to be in need of privileged legal protection, that those “majority” outsiders can have no understanding of them.

Graham,

(Your Scanlon's Society link doesn't work..this does
http://scanlonfoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Mapping-Social-Cohesion-Report.pdf)

It seems to me that the bigger problem with the way the RDA works is that the decision about whether an offence or an insult occurred is in the hands of the alleged 'victim'. Irrespective of the intentions of the 'perpetrator'. Irrespective of whether he sought to be offensive or insulting, if someone somewhere asserts they are offended and are part of the offended group, then the door is open to take action under the RDA. We saw this when Soutphommasane went looking for people who could claim offence from the Leak cartoon.

For that reason, hopefully, "harass" is probably a better subjective test as to whether a true offence has occurred. It will be much more difficult to assert harassment as opposed to simply feeling insulted since it does presuppose some intent from the 'perpetrator'.

"News is what people don't want you to print. Everything thing else is ads." William Randolph Hearst

The current use of 18C is to close debate into things some would prefer not debated. Bolt was about protecting the privileges of privileged aboringals from scrutiny. Leak was about stopping any discussion as to whether the problems of aboriginal youth was caused by any other than white racism. On the other hand, QUT was probably just about money and the main chance.

Closing down debate doesn't close down debate, it just pushes it underground and in a democratic society that's the last place you want it to be.