People wanting the law to babysit them against being 'offended' simply do no have any guts, self-esteem or the courage of their convictions. They really need to be offended.

Sorry mate, have to disagree! And we can always disagree agreeably!

I know it's hard for the dregs, drones and dropkicks of society to engage others in respectful conversation. but that is how civil societies cohabitate in peaceful cohabitation.

Here we see various folk, who for rank political/socioeconomic outcomes are forever insulting and sensation-seeking mongrels, shock jocks and ill-mannered oafs, completely devoid of respect for the rights of minorities or difference!?

I was raised to believe, common curtesy and civility costs nothing!
Albeit, some folk try my patience beyond endurance and I have never been able to suffer fools gladly!

People seeking the spoils of public office shoulda t least be able to mount a logical persuasive argument to support their ideas, David!

As opposed to fomenting hate and division along tribal or ethnic/difference/pseudo-religious lines etc-etc.

Hasen, for example, wants to mount a rock? Haven't seen Rocky for a while but if he reads these lines, probably more than happy to oblige? Several dozen times? And probably cure Mz Hansen's current malady? My Dad used to say, you see the strangest sights, when you haven't got a gun. Y'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Increasingly fragile bunch aren't we. Spoiled rotten.
We're beyond the point where rational argument can save the day. Unfortunately.

It is legitimate for a society to determine the standards of behaviour within it, and this includes banning certain forms of offensiveness.

What is not legitimate, is when a society forces people to join and become part of it.

Had one not been required to and chose to not be involved with a given society, then one would never face its registrars, magistrates, bankruptcy examinations, tribunals, commissions, regulators or review boards, hence the question of offensive speech would never arise. That said, nor could one then benefit from that society's institutions after choosing to remain outside.

The author's frustrations have therefore been misplaced.

Hear, hear and well said, Yuyustu.
Alan B.

Alan,

you find me a civil society and I will engage in civility when interacting with them.
I agree with your Dad, but find your position rather devoid of reason.
If I offend someone, it is with reason or justification.
It is not the purview of others to criticise, adjudicate or speculate as to whether or not the act of offending was justified, especially if they were not privy to or a recipient of the original interaction responsible for the offending response in the first place.
The title states one thing, but the header comment seems to contradict it.
I agree with ANYTHING offensive not being a matter that should involve the law, but who said it was and why?
Then again I don't see the rationale behind not offending those "officials" who, it would appear, are offending you in the course of executing their duties.
If by doing so they offend or anger me, then I will respond in kind.
If they are so offended, over time, then I suggest they move on.
If this topic is in defense of PC, then I absolutely reject, without question, any attempt to justify PC.
It is a vial language and belongs in the bin like the people who promote it.
Alan, if you are a PC promoter, shame on you, you do not realise that PC is the equivalent to lying.
If one cannot express oneself in the manner befitting the situation or conversation then it is no wonder we have ended up here.
Alan, you speak as if on a pulpit.
You are neither a leader or an expert in human interactions, so your opinions are unfounded.
Civil societies co-habitate?
What arrogance, and you dare question public civility!
Making the offensive statements you made in your opening remarks, are the very thing which engenders offensive responses, and if you can't see that then you're wired differently from 'normal' people.
How stupid do you think someone is to stand there and cop the kind of offensive language you demonstrate and expect no spray in return.
His right of rebuttal demands it.

Well, the insidious work of the Academia-backed social engineer megalomaniacs is bearing fruit !

Many thanks David for making the efforts you did in defending free speech in Australia.
I too hope that there will be others willing to take up this cause.

"Taking offence is not a matter for the law";
- Especially when 'taking the piss' is a bona-fide part of our national culture.

If you take these to things together, it becomes evident that our nation is displaying symptoms of a serious mental illness, is it not?

As a true blue Aussie the only reasonable response I could ever make to them is to tell them where I think they should go;
- In a certain refined Australian vernacular that goes beyond what is permitted here -

This 'offense' narrative comes from foreigners and brainwashed university people from our foreign filled liberal cities who are trying to impose their new global PC religion on the rest of ours and every other western nations constituents.

(And also backed by the ADL's constant divisive promoting of 'anti-hate speech' ideology)

AC,

good to hear some home truths for a change, and not some unrealistic,
misguided and baseless dogma, preached by those from the "precious" and completely unrealistic side of the tracks.
They choose to live in what they consider to be a "perfect" world.
Unfortunately THEIR perfect world is in their own head.
If only these same people would look around themselves with open eyes and minds, we would not have to watch our P's and Q's.
This ignorant PC attitude affects me and so many others and is most pervasive if not recognised and rejected with prejudice, because I have always enjoyed a good joke or send-up.
These days PC has hit the most basic of life's pleasures with it's insidious disease spreading even into the world of comedy.
This is the last place I would have expected this disease to have infiltrated.
A sense of humour is simply that just another sense, that your either born with or not.
I have always maintained that if I feel the need to insult, then I will, and I must.
If I intended to offend, then I have achieved my goal.
To do otherwise is to lie.
So now I am expected to be untruthful because the truth might upset the very person the truth will offend?
People are mentally and emotionally lacking or mis-directed.
They are also gutless, they lack the courage of their convictions, whereby it is easier to give in and agree, than to stand and fight, even if only verbally.
So it is that such people must be shunned and avoided or side-lined, because to take them seriously, taxes us and the system in real terms by trying to change the NATURAL course of events and therefore, life and nature itself, as we know it.

Unfortunately THEIR perfect world is in their own head.
Altrav,
That's fine but also include the Welfare payments for their perfect world to the contents of their heads !