A lot more than a “few” of us are well aware that freedom of speech - and democracy itself - is under threat in Australia. And the reason? Australian politicians are in thrall to the lunatic Left. In fact, more and more politicians are of the lunatic Left, no matter what the call themselves.

Yes. 18c should be repealed, but the lunatic Left will see that it is not.

Offence-takers and deliberate victims should just be ignored.

The the third bill will not get off the ground. The press is disgrace, and is held in contempt by most people.

But, given the unpopularity of this senator, and the thuggery that his bills will be met with from the lunatic left (which now has crept into the Liberal party) he is wasting his time.

Great that we have at least one politician prepared to stand up for our liberties. It is shameful that a liberal government has been unable or unwilling to remove s18C despite being in power for several years. It seems the two main parties are in lock step when it comes to freedom of speech issues.

I can see grounds for a bill of rights that include the right to free speech, David. But not the grab bag of barely veiled risible rubbish that allegedly supports it, espoused here.

Paliamarterians like yourself can say almost anything in the coward's castle of parliament, which you have used entirely unsparingly with your unwarranted attack on the moral values (none of your business sir) Senator Hansen Young and the number of men she may or may not sleep with.

You should man up, apologise and withdraw!

Certainly never ever post something like this to preach to your homophobic xenophobic support base?

To what end?

Possibly extend your time there and the comfortable salary you'd miss as another old and opinionated hasbeen?

If you really want to get up the Honourable Senator's nose sir?

Suggest you mount a spirited and drawn out campaign for (carbon-free) MSR thorium and Power prices as low 2 cents per KwH!

Through that, for the hundreds of currently sacrificed lives that regularly exceed the annual road toll. Be they those facing death sentence cancer like ovarian or brain cancer.

These two have remained stubbornly high for the last three decades and the annual death toll from curable (just not here) cancer, with the expert application of alpha particle isotope bismuth 213.

which is attached to a specific antibody, that then destroys the cancer cells and in minutes, without significantly harming adjacent healthy cells.

Bismuth 213 is the nuclear decay product of U233. We only get U233 from the nuclear conversion of thorium.

Now extremely limited! Because of asinine prohibition!

Suggest you wedge the good senator on ovarian cancer, her and her party's stubborn obtuse resistance to MR thorium and through that, the only pathway to the manufacture of, miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213!

Proven effective against even death sentence stage four ovarian cancer in 2006 European treatment trials, OVER TWO DECADES AGO!

Green resistance condemning hundred to an entirely unnecessary premature and horrible death! For which she and her party of moribund misfits advocate euthanasia!
As their only preferred solution!?
Alan B.

what on earth would our 400000 dollar a year Human Rights Commissioner do if he/she could not search desperately for white male 'racist'. The victim industry would be dealt a major blow should we get rid of 18C. The real victims like uni students who just want to use a computer (but banned because they were white) might avoid such witch hunts and Bill Leak who was 'investigated' for making a valid point about fatherless Indigeneous kids might even be alive today.

Dear Alan B.,

Well said.

We have noticed this Senator's remarkable transformation
in the last months from a sex-starved boa constrictor
to a Mr Bean.

He won't be coming back after the election!

No, Alan. We do not need a Bill of Rights. The AHRC should have put everyone except the loony Left right off that idea. We have laws more than adequate to deal with everybody's rights, most of which are really privileges.

David, don't listen to the rubbish being churned over here.
You have the backing of the people who still know the difference between right, wrong and just plain stupidity.
Those who oppose you are what I call 'males' who's most relevant feature is having been neutered by the loony left 'females'.
I and millions of other MEN support you and your policies.
Whatever you do, do not appologise to this smart arse little miss 'two dads'.
She is not a person of any value to the parliament or the people of Australia.
I have already tagged her as a 'JOKE' on this forum.
I may totally disagree with Alan B's perception of your position but I whole heartedly endorse his un-relentless push for Thorium.
You would not do your career any harm if you looked into thorium, and please, not withstanding HIS political lean, I would go so far as to contact him for a quick tutorial on the subject.
You will not be disappointed.
As for any emotionally driven comments of your being re-elected, I can say that these people are so twisted by their beliefs of the far left, they are way too far removed from reality.
I in fact have spoken of the fact you will gain followers and La La two dads will get the arse.
If the talk out in the 'real' world is anything to go on. One can only hope.
Finally I am pleased to see you mixing it with the riff-raff.
It won't do your political carrier any harm.
Good for you.
Keep it up.

ttbn. We stand alone as the only western democracy without an irrevocable bill of rights!

If it's so wrong? Why has every other democracy on earth have one?

Seriously. Do we still regard ourselves as a penal colony?

Which would lend weight to your obtuse asinine argument for not having one

Everywhere that has one, freedom of speech is enshrined!

One cannot be half pregnant! Either we all have rights that must needs include freedom of expression, assembly and freedom of religion?

Or the current status quo. Privileges handed down from on high by our lords and masters!

And it's not only the loony left that stands in the way. But the extreme right control freak fringe as well!? Who to a virtual generic man oppose a bill of rights on the completely spurious grounds we don't need one!

Tell that to Doctor Haneef and the hundreds of other wrongly accused or maligned by officialdom?

The Senator was entirely out of order and now wants to cherry pick his right to be a blatant misogynist?

By creating a right to (highly selective) free speech as his straw man argument! Ostensibly to avoid taking responsibility for conduct not fit and becoming a gentleman!?
Alan B.

Alan B.
the downside of free speech is that we're constantly exposed to your drivel. There's no upside when you consider that free speech is available on this site, but not on the taxpayer funded Green Bee Cee.

Alan B, don't you feel constrained enough already by this system and it's mountain of useless laws?
I do!
Good people don't need laws, they are good people and do the 'right thing' naturally, without threats or continual oversight by a corrupt and inept, law enforcement machine.
The bad guys, on the other hand, completely ignore the laws and do whatever they want with impunity.
So what is the point of a bill of rights with all these constraints already in place?
More rules?
Iv'e had it up to here and back with rules and laws.
We are way too overgoverned.
I would in fact collect up all the pollies and the judiciary and the police, and shoot them all.
We would still carry on without any change in society.
The good guys keep on being good.
The bad guys keep on being bad, and so on.
If all these laws and cops were so good, the jails would be well and truly overflowing by now.
But NO we have to put up with the scum and then watch them get a slap on the hand and back on the street.
Is your bill of rights going to put these same people in jail instead of releasing them back into the community to do it all over again?
No I didn't think so.
Free speech must be left alone, in doing so we can highlight the flaws in the system so eventually something might be done about it.
Freedom of speech is pointless if we do not also remove Political Correctness.
You cannot remove one without the other.
They have always worked in tandem with one another and therefore cause great harm to the freedom of speech agenda if tampered with.

Alan B, don't you feel constrained enough already by this system and it's mountain of useless laws?
I do!
Good people don't need laws, they are good people and do the 'right thing' naturally, without threats or continual oversight by a corrupt and inept, law enforcement machine.
The bad guys, on the other hand, completely ignore the laws and do whatever they want with impunity.
So what is the point of a bill of rights with all these constraints already in place?
More rules?
Iv'e had it up to here and back with rules and laws.
We are way too overgoverned.
I would in fact collect up all the pollies and the judiciary and the police, and drown them all.
We would still carry on without any change in society.
The good guys keep on being good.
The bad guys keep on being bad, and so on.
If all these laws and cops were so good, the jails would be well and truly overflowing by now.
But NO we have to put up with the scum and then watch them get a slap on the hand and back on the street.
Is your bill of rights going to put these same people in jail instead of releasing them back into the community to do it all over again?
No I didn't think so.
Free speech must be left alone, in doing so we can highlight the flaws in the system so eventually something might be done about it.
Freedom of speech is pointless if we do not also remove Political Correctness.
You cannot remove one without the other.
They have always worked in tandem with one another and therefore cause great harm to the freedom of speech agenda if tampered with.

It's a fact that we do not have the legislated right to free speech, just an "implied right".
People have absorbed US culture so much that they think they have that right plus the "right to remain silent" and so on.

Our Constitution intends (hopes) that individual rights would be protected under the democratic process but does not guarantee them.

Democracies require freedom of political communication.
Because the country is to be led by the people (or individuals representing the people’s interests), then the people must be heard, and be able to develop informed opinions - but that can't be used as a claim to the right of "free speech" generally.

We are subject to a variety of laws restricting free speech, including defamation laws, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws, and laws against threatening others.

However, the 18C fiasco was never about "free speech". The Bolt case was about deliberate factual distortion intended to racially vilify a specific group - not the same thing. In that instance, somebody finally decided to call him out on one of his false claims.
Then he complained on his TV show, Radio show, Facebook and Twitter accounts and in his newspaper column that he had been "silenced".

rache, it cannot be claimed that we can speak freely if we have laws which clearly prohibit freedom of speech.
I subscribe and hold strongly to the view that I 'must' say exactly what I feel I should say, without fear or favour.
If I wish to insult someone, I must be allowed to do so.
These laws you speak of they are not promoting the truth, but lies.
If I believe the situation calls for a good verballing, then so be it.
I care not for a country or it's people where a very small minority, again wish to dictate to the greater majority, on such issues as free speech.
As human beings we are endowed with all these emotions.
If I hate someone, that is my right.
If I wish to vilify and insult someone, that too is my right.
There is no correct way to insult or threaten someone without insulting or threatening them.
I would challenge anyone on the basis that if they are not co-accused in the matter of abuse in question, they have no right of engagement in the matter at hand and should simply move on.
It is moronic to say the least when a govt actually legislates on such issues as freedom of speech.
Just because a few wallflowers are offended by some intended offensive comments does not mean they should not be said.
If what is said is untrue,then the comments can be challenged, and should be dealt with immediately.
Just like maggot two dads.
If the rumours of her sleeping around are unfounded then she should have fessed up, in doing so would have put her detractors in their place.
But no she is guilty as charged by her own hand in not challenging the allegation.
So you SNAGS and FAGS get back in your respective boxes or closets or wherever the heck you all come from and practice your nanny politics and PC oppressive speech mantra's to yourselves because us open minded liberal thinking, free speaking guys, don't want to listen to your self righteous and oppressive BS.

Dear rache,

Well said. A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to democracy. A democracy
also requires its citizens to make informed choices.
They need access to information. If citizens or
their representatives are denied access to the
information they need to make these choices, or if they
are given false or misleading information, the
democratic process becomes a sham.

It is therefore important that the media not be censored,
that citizens have the right of free speech, and that
public officials tell the truth.

In the case of Senator David Leyonhjelm - he behaved
inappropriately and should have simply apologised. He
misinterpreted what she said and accused her of saying
something she did not say. To make matters worse when
she asked for an explanation - he told her to "F-off,"
and then went on TV and radio and repeated his comments.
That sort of behaviour is and should be unacceptable.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others. For example
their right to maintain their good reputation and their
right to privacy.

All democratic societies put various
restrictions on what people may say. They prohibit
certain types of speech that they believe might harm
the government or people. We have laws covering libel,
slander, public decency, urging violence, speech that
endangers lives, property, or national security and so on.

We have laws that we are all expected to abide by, whether
we like them or not for the sake of social cohesion and
a fair, civilised and equitable society in which we can
all enjoy living together. Imagine if we all went around
being abusive?

The only nation on the planet that truly has free speech is the USA. That's because the laws that protect their speech are in their constitution and therefore override all other laws. Other nations such as Australia, UK, NZ etc have free speech laws but these are laws passed by their legislature and therefore can be revoked by the legislature. Whatismore they can be overridden and/or modified by the legislature at will.

In the US laws like 18C would never happen and if they did they would be quickly ruled illegal by the relevant courts since they violate the constitution. In the US, the QLD university students wouldn't merely be found innocent after being put through the wringers by various anti-free speech bureaucrats, they would be able to sue based upon violations of their rights and the resultant payout would deter any other group from trying it on again.

So while we can applaud the good senators aims to make a bad situation marginally less bad, ultimately the aim has to be to get a clause or clauses in the constitution which will stop censorious bureaucrats, politicians and ancillary social-justice warriors from attacking the most fundamental right of all.

The US Constitution's First Amendment protects free
speech very broadly. However there are nine categories
that are not protected:

1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words
3) Defamation (incl. libel and slander)
4) Child pornography
5) Perjury
6) Blackmail
7) Incitement to imminent lawless action
8) True threats
9) Solicitations to commit crimes

Some people would add treason (if committed verbally) and
plagiarism is also not protected.

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights and our Constitution
does not guarantee our freedom of speech. The framers of our
Constitution it seems preferred to place their faith in the
democratic process for the protection of individual rights.
They possibly thought that by defining rights we would in
effect be limiting them. So until we change what we have
currently - we are required to abide by the laws that we have.

It will be interesting to see whose side the law is regarding
the two senators. Senator Hanson Young and Senator David
Leyonhjelm.

I'm not getting it.
If the US constitution protects free speech, I did not see any reference to the categories mentioned.
They must be in some other section or I've looked up A wrong interpretation of the US constitution.
Anyway, WTF are we referring to the US for?
Don't we have enough crap laws already?
Enough already.
Just as some believe that DL behaved 'inappropriately', there are many many more who believe SHY behaved like someone who is not befitting the position of a minister of the govt.
DL actually stands for something and someone.
It just doesn't happen to be the left and the maggots, so surprise surprise, they come out whinging and bitching because that's all their good at.
She is a disgusting and embarrassing 'look' for a politician.
Unless we are to see her as a 'joke' politician, then she is perfectly placed.
No platform, nothing of any value or relevance.
Just acting as if she knows what she is talking about and keeps putting her foot in her mouth at every turn.
So this is why the con Sarah two dads is wrong in what she said and did on the day.
Because this is her inept and normal level and intellect and is stuffing up day after day. The sooner she gets the arse, (no won't go there) the better.

ALTRAV,

Why would you think it's acceptable in any fair and reasonable society to be able to defame, sexually harass, bully, threaten or vilify anybody on the basis of race or sexual orientation or any other aspect with which you happen to personally disagree?
Does that restriction somehow place you at a personal disadvantage?

If you had those rights then why would somebody not have the right to retaliate - physically if required - to silence you?

Why can't I be allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, if only for my own amusement, or smoke in a restaurant or spit in the street?

I'm free to publicly refer to people as cripples, spastic, n*ggers or wogs in public but that would say more about me than about to who I may be referring although I can be arrested for shouting obscenities.

It's not the mythical and overblown restriction called Politicial Correctness, just manners. You're free to argue any point you wish but just not in a particular manner.

It's how society maintains some sort of civility.

(I've also noticed that I had to spell the word n*ggers because the proper spelling was automatically classified by this site as a profanity - but wog wasn't. There's a restriction right there but I fully accept it because I was still able to make my point.)

Rache, you just made one of my points.
You see I'm a WOG and I'm not offended.
I grew up with it as a term of endearment.
I say exactly what I need to say to make a point or deliver a message.
Other commentors on OLO will tell you I have always written in the language I grew up with; Australian.
I constantly use words like skip, abo and sometimes refer to bent and twisted misguided 'females' as maggots.
I do so with purpose.
The written word is lacking in it's ability to convey emotion or inflection.
So I use words to make up for this short fall.
If I wish to insult, vilify, abuse or just annoy someone for whatever reasons, it is not for public scrutiny because the public are not a part of my comments.
If and when they are I will convey the appropriate message accordingly.
Public civility is earned.
Given that the public puts on one face but when confronted with something THEY find objectionable, they immediately change and throw a stream of threats to justify themselves.
I am free to say what I want if the situation calls for it and yes if you challenge someone and they don't like it I fully expect physical retaliation.
But my point is, is what I said true or not?
If it's true then the retaliation says more about them than it does about me.
If my name calling is unjustified then it's about me.
If not then it again says more about them.
I will never sugar coat or soften a point just because it might offend.
Yours and lefty logic is unnatural.
You are attempting to make us all something we are not.
It matters not what people think of me it has nothing to do with the topic of conversation.
Your premise is based on a very childlike ideology.
My message to you and your followers is, grow up, take it like men, and stop trying to pull men down to the level of neuters and males.
Are you male or man?

//Why would you think it's acceptable in any fair and reasonable society to be able to defame, sexually harass, bully, threaten or vilify anybody on the basis of race or sexual orientation or any other aspect with which you happen to personally disagree?//

Because he's not the full quid.

Toni, by your continual carry on you have foolishly fallen into your own trap.
You can't just make these types of comments without justification.
Now either explain your reasoning or stop shooting yourself in the foot.
I on the other hand have stated many times, to the point of ad nauseam that I care not what personal attacks I have to ignore, because people have no viable response to my comments and resort to exposing themselves due to a lack of reasoning and understanding.
If I make a comment, unless it can be proven to be wrong, it is my comment and I don't expect the loony left and the like to agree, so thank you for your comments.
I leave you with a very well known phrase.
'Say nothing and be thought a fool, or speak and have it confirmed'.

"Why would you think it's acceptable in any fair and reasonable society to be able to defame, sexually harass, bully, threaten or vilify anybody on the basis of race or sexual orientation or any other aspect with which you happen to personally disagree?"

The problem is working out who gets to decide what's fair and reasonable. Unfortunately it ends up being governments and bureaucrats with something to hide. OR SJW who want society to conform to their way of thinking.

"Why can't I be allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre".

You can...if there's a fire..or if you think there's a fire.

//You can't just make these types of comments without justification.//

I don't see why not. You do it all the time.

Toni, again you display a lack of knowledge and imagination.
You fail to see that the very thing this topic is about is to combat exactly what you are guilty of and strongly supports me and my stance.
You and your lot are the real problem.
If I find that someone is talking rubbish, such as ANTIFA and the loony left, just a couple of examples,I will not allow them to try to influence weak minds into believing their tripe.
It is incumbent upon people like myself to bring these people to account.
If you are such a person, I feel sorry for you and only hope that you broaden your scope of experiences so as to see what actually goes on out there and what is being said by the mature and informed majority and not the immature and un-informed minority.

funny how Bill Shorten thinks its fine for women Labour reps to abuse 20 staff or so even getting them to pick up her dog dung. Hypocrisy at its best.

Runner, good point.
And these are the people and the ethics the loony left believe in.
When will the left learn that labour wants to bring the country down where-as the Right are about building the country up.
Their jealousy and envy blinds them to the fact that we need industrialists to establish the businesses which employs the same people who want to stop them.
I'd like to know where these moronic left think the jobs are coming from if you stop the creation of new companies.
I don't want people like this to be able to use freedom of speech to destroy Australia.
So let's stop them talking crap and just maybe we can start to get back to a positive growth and prosperity again.

//the very thing this topic is about is to combat exactly what you are guilty of//

Exercising my free speech? I'm not sure you've fully grasped the point of the article. Senator Whatshisface is in favour of increased free speech, even if it upsets people not in full possession of their marbles when that fact is remarked upon.

//I don't want people like this to be able to use freedom of speech//

Again, I'm not sure you've fully grasped the point of the article. If you support the Lib Dems because you think they're going to clamp down on freedom of speech, then I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.

Dear Toni,

You may appreciate this: :)

"Lord, Grant me the serenity to accept stupid people the way they are
Courage to maintain my self-control
And wisdom to know that if I act on it,
I will go to jail ..."

Toni, if I am not explaining myself adequately, I appologise.
I make no excuses.
But I think you know that as I uphold DL and his platform, my meaning should be clear to you, even if my wording is not.
The simple answer is I support DL and what he stands for.
How about you?

Foxy BTW, your continual attempt at trying to get to the moral high ground is not a good look.
At least my comments are relevant to this topic.
Yours rarely are as you insist on making personal observations and character assassinations.
I am provoked to go off topic by those who are of your elk.
When I respond it is to remind them they have 'nodded off at the wheel' and are going to crash and burn against a verbal tree or wall.
Foxy, like most women, you make it hard for us to love you, but we do.
Go figure.

"Lord, Grant me the serenity to accept stupid people the way they are
Foxy,
The lord is not needed for this, a mirror will suffice.

individual,

"A man's manners are a mirror in which he shows
his portrait."

Or put another way:

"Behaviour is the mirror in which everyone shows
their image."

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).

There you go.