I agree Robert, Domestic Violence studies are normally the most biased studies that Social Science undertakes. The results of these biased studies are then used by certain organisations to keep themselves in business, and continue their indoctrination and brainwashing of others, which then helps to keep themselves in business even further.

There is now almost no accountability in Social Science, and “Free Speech” in Social Science seems to mean that it can produce any type of result to any type of study it chooses to carry out (ie. “advocacy research” I believe it is called). You can almost buy a required result to be produced by a Social Scientist.

Big Al,
"Making people in a queue outside a public building laugh by telling jokes is "breaching the peace"?"
- Of course it's not, but telling jokes is not why the men were arrested. You seem to base the rest of what you say on this false proposition.

You have no clue what the "PC agenda" is at all. The is no "PC agenda".

"Who gave them the authority to decide what's 'correct' or 'incorrect' They are arrogant. It's time to say "enough" right now and challenge this draconion law."

Who is who and they? The mythical enemy? The communist Illuminati conspiracy?

Political correctness has always existed, since civilisation. Everyone engages in political correctness, even you. Tell me, when was the last time you called a black person the N word in public? Right - along time ago, if ever - you P.C hypocrite! Would you reprimand a child if they said the N word in public? Of course you would, you P.C Nazi!!!

Not really and quite the opposite of being a Nazi, you are just reprimanding the child for using ethically wrong language. Society as a whole determines what is 'ethically right' and 'ethically wrong'. If you haven't connected the dots already: what is politically correct is ethically correct, what is politically incorrect is ethically wrong. Hence, using derogatory terms that devalue other people solely because of their race, gender, religion, etc. are ethically wrong. I for one am glad that more people (and society) believe "all men [people] were created equal" and this is reflected in their communications with others. You might have a problem with this, but it's your prejudice, not anyone else's fault.

The anti-vilification laws are draconian because they protect the freedom of others, especially minorities?

It seems that those who want the right to whip up hatred - hatred which leads to violence - do not want to take any responsibility for that hatred and the violence it causes. Tough! The people have spoken, if you cause violence and attacks on the freedom of others, either through words or actions, you gotta pay.

I suggest everyone have a look at this:
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/043/Politically%20Correct%20Language%20and%20The%20'War%20on%20Terrorism'%20By%20Paul%20J.%20Piccard_043_14_.htm , just copy and paste into your browser.

I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Jim Wallace in this article.

Curb freedom of speech and you submit to the tyranny of some pre-ordained standard.

I would have supported David Irving and Malcolm X and every other half-wit being allowed to speak in Australia rather than being banned or denied a visa. These two individuals views are grossly offensive to me but that does not matter.

Freedom of Speech allows the Wise and the Idiot to be judged by the quality of their utterances.
Censorship represses the view of the Wise and the Idiot equally

If someone is a fool and pronounces their foolishness then let them and let society be thankful for the warning.

The point at which society needs to exercise intervention is not at "statement" but at "incitement".

Col Rouge

If I might backtrack a little, the argument about allowing instructions about how to make a bomb, and assisting pornography on the Internet is unconvincing. This is going beyond "freedom of speech" into the realm of irresponsible action. Regard for the Law against illegal explosives and public safety, Laws against child abuse; and also"common sense" would dictate that they were reckless irresponsible and against the Public Interest.

Re the lawyer jokes. If not the jokes, what were they arrested for?

I haven't used that "N" word since I was a kid saying "Eenny meeny miney mo" As soon as I knew that it was hurtful to black people, I never used it again. That wasn't P.C. That was merely good manners before I'd heard of PC. Why does PC go to such extremes as baning the word "Chairman" or "Chairwoman" in favour of "Chairperson"? In fact they hate to say the word "man" at all. They even dictate the colour of rubbish bins saying they insult certain people. They do have an agenda. It is aimed at changing the use of language to eradicate male terminology and other childish feminist rubbish.

Also undermining Christian traditions such as Christmas.

Had this case never taken place, few would have taken the trouble to investigate the Qu'ran and some of its more colourful verses, Now many of us who have done so are troubled by what we've read and will view Islam with more caution. The Vilification Law has been counter productive.

Where to start? This case is so riddled with misinformation...
Re DMAC's comment: "I find it incredibly misinformative that that opponents of this decision fail to mention that one of the two pastors/preachers argued that Muslims have a plan to take over Western democracy through violence and terror, and to replace it with repressive regimes; while the other argued that Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia."
NEITHER of the pastors said this. Thhis is a direct take from Waleed Aly's article, who is an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria.
The judge referred to 'statements made by Daniel Scot'. So the media and everyone else thinks he ACTUALLY said "Muslims are demons". (See BOAZ_David) But he DID NOT say that! He quoted from the Qur'an (Sura 72) where jinn (demons) came to Mohammed and became Muslims.
Such distortion of the TRUTH!!!!!
Why not read the transcript of the seminar? Terry Lane did - and his view of the decision is breathtaking! He says it is "riddled with errors".
Read his column at http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Shouting-out-for-freedom-of-speech/2005/01/01/1104345031333.html
The transcript of Daniel Scot's seminar is online on an English law website - read it at http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/interausae.pdf
That should keep everyone busy for a while - and maybe you will find the TRUTH - although that is NOT a defence under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act!
Jenny Stokes

Good one Jenny Stokes. Plenty of food for thought for paulx82, dmac and the rest! And how pathetic that "TRUTH is no defence" under this un-Australian legislation.
The old-time Labor leaders like Scullin, Curtin and Chifley would turn in their graves to see a Labor Government pass such a Law.