I agree with the sentiment of the article

You cannot have freedom of expression without freedom to express hate.

You cannot and willnot protect the world from any extremist behaviour of any sort by anti-vilification laws.

The point of social intervention should not be at the making of a hateful statement but at incitement to hateful acts.

Of course we are also talking about subjective assessment
was what someone said within or beyond the law?
what was the tone of voice?
were the hand jestures which accompanied the statement aggressive?
How much sarcasm was employed?

Finally

Freedom of expression allows the sage to display his wisdom and the fool to display his stupidity,
Censorship will invariably obscure the distinction
(and usually results in an arrogant fool being elevated to the role of censor)

Amir you got it wrong in the second line of your article
"Advocates of such a view would have us believe that if people are simply not allowed to speak hatefully, the hatred that underpins their speech will somehow evaporate and we can all welcome a new era of tolerance and understanding."

No we don't what we are saying is Poeple should not be allowed to publically express views which cause offence and incite hate. This will help stop these ideas from spreading.

Hitler started off just making a few speeches and writing a few articles.

We can have freedom to speak the truth as we understand it regards - say islam without hating islamics.Would I be indicted for vilification if I stated that not all terrorists are moslem but 99.9% of all terrorists are moslem. Further I ,sadly, do not trust moslems as a group when they have what they call a "hudna" or tactical truce. That is they can proclaim a cease fire - in all it's forms including a religious cease fire.Yet whilst we see it as a cease fire islamics see it as a 'hudna' or a tactical truce. Which of course means that when conditions change, when they are in a position of strength they can legally repudiate this cease fire.This hudna is deeply rooted in the islamic tradition.So when the time is ripe will Australian moslems insist on the savage, barbaric & brutal sharia law for this country? oops another court case or fatwa?

Moslems call me and mine unbelievers and/or heretics they can ridicule the Christian religion the virgin birth and Jesus Himself. That is see Him as a only a man and a prophet, should I say similar things about mohammed, though completely true they possibly would take me to court.Further if I stated that allah is, in my view, a pagan god and not the same Creator God we Christians worship perhaps another court case or even a fatwa. I do see this so-called vilification as slanted towards the minorities.Further more work needs to be done on this vilification law. Of course as many other Australians I see our courts and law as a total ass.A Qld judge set a known dangerous child molester free recently. Why? because in his eyes the State gov. was late in their paper work to keep this monster in jail.Yes this "learned judge?" even admitted that the man he set free could pose a threat to children, though he was sure that the Police could keep an eye on him.But that is another subject.Do not like pagan islam at all but do not and cannot hate moslems. Regards, numbat

I entirely agree with Amir when he states,

"... it is imperative to our pluralist society that all religions be able to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas."

What is so sad is that the Victorian ALP Government and those who pushed for this law don't share this foundational commitment to freedom.

Intellectually I agree with the poster but in practice allowing people to express negative views about another group in public appears to 'legitimise' other views in the community. I cite Pauline Hansens views as expressed prior to her election, regardless of their accuracy and intention. From hearing very little about the situation of Aboriginal people prior to her electioneering, suddenly all my acquaintances had views, usually rehashed rubbish from the media, innacuarate and unhelpful, but the speakers had managed to whip themselves up into a frenzy of indignantion about 'preferential treatment' for one of the most underpriveleged groups in our society, (and in case anyone wants to jump in and deny this, compare the death rates from preventable illness). I'm not for a second suggesting that my acquaintances were going to start fire bombing or violently abusing Aboriginal people because of the views they held but a small proportion of extremists could have had their anger 'legitimised' by this talk and decided to do something practical with their hate. Nor am I suggesting that not allowing extreme views in public will 'make them go away'. These people cannot be changed by reason or rational discussion but I think society has to be aware that they exist and not allow them to believe their actions are related to the feelings of the mainstream. There is still plenty of scope for rational and constructive discussion on difference in our society within these laws. The moderate people will be open to enlightenment from robust debate - the only people who will benefit from a free rein will be the extremists, of any persuasion.

Regards

Jo

So JoJo, in your ideal world Pauline Hanson would have been successfully prosecuted, and fined or imprisoned (and presumably not have been able to take her seat in Parliament) under Racial Anti-Vilification laws?

Wasn't it more fun for us all to watch her wither under the pressure of her own manifest inadaquacy?