A licence to offend is not necessarily a free pass "to vilification, intimidation and bullying", there is no justification for making such a sweeping statement,this is really drawing a longbow! Of course there are limits to the exercise of free speech,such as the famous example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or racial villification. Just where does the author propose to set the limits to free speech? Examples please.David knoll writes "..liberty is measured not by the freedoms exercised by one person...".Really? How can our freedoms be of any value unless they are exercised by us as individuals?

I am also concered that the Holocaust doesn't fade from memory or history, we must remember the other victims of the Nazis, the Roma and Slavs,who seem to have been forgotten.

If we applied David Knoll's principles we wouldn't allow some Israeli politicians to speak in public in Australia,would we?

I read Mac's comment above and can quite see his point...and yet I found myself agreeing with much that the author had to say.

Undoubtedly our society has become desensitised to the power of words.

Most of us believe that the rhetoric of politicians, advertisements, salespeople and many public figures are not worth the paper they are written on.

Even when our leaders have been caught telling outright lies there is no groundswell of indignation and outrage at the act of lying: merely at the manipulation of political expediency.

In the community at large this 'licence to offend' seems somehow to have become entrenched as freedom of expression. Indeed, even on this forum, protesting that rights carry responsibilities and that social mores should not include deliberate vilification, disrespect, and offensiveness is met with baying accusations that one is trying to limit freedom of speech - and often leads to increased abuse.

I believe that the concept of rights and freedoms is imperfectoy understood by many- either that, or they are deliberately ignored with impunity. We are becoming a society of bullies: not solely in the physical sense; but where the most outspokenly offensive, loudest abuser, regardless of logic or truth, wins the day.

The right to say whatever you want as long as nobody is offended is a definition of free speech where it doesn't exist.

>> even on this forum, protesting that rights carry responsibilities and that social mores should not include deliberate vilification, disrespect,
>> and offensiveness is met with baying accusations that one is trying to limit freedom of speech

romany, i'll try not to bay, but this is usually what such calls are doing, seemingly what you are doing, and definitely what knoll is doing. you may argue for that limitation, but let's not pretend that's not what is being called for.

and frankly, i think knoll's article makes an awful case for it.

central to the Australian ethos of a “fair go”

My experiences of what constitutes a “fair go” in Australian society differ somewhat from the author’s. I would suggest that the ‘fair go” exists within the different tribal groups that an individual belongs to at any particular point in time - be it religious group or as a football supporter.
He can’t be too bad – he supports the Broncos and just like us he hurls abuse and anything he can get his hands on at the opposition supporters.

Our technological world has just made it easier to hurl abuse at some other tribe member and claim it is done under the umbrella of free speech.

Hatred of others comes initially from the attitudes within our own family.

Unfortunately, society must decide when it is appropriate to silence the peddlers of hate and misinformation – the cost of this is free speech.

Personally, I'm inclined to let the b*stards have their rant: Give 'em enough rope ...

The inherent problem with vilification laws is that you can end up in a situation where no-one is allowed to disagree with anyone, because it "offends" them.

Fringe religious groups, especially the ones that worship bad science fiction writers, are only too aware of this, and are well prepared to (ab)use it.