I disrespectfully suggest that those who propose implementing a ban on freedom of speech go live in countries where such bans are already in force.
Almost any Islamic country would do, with communist countries close behind and Canada bringing up the rear.
Or perhaps you might not have to if the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has its way.
With its increasingly strident moves to implement freedom of speech restrictions at the international level via UNHRC resolutions, our governments may well eventually capitulate and adopt the OIC measures so as not to offend anybody who doesn't want to hear that Muhammad was a terrorist who beheaded his enemies and raped their women.
Oops! I hope I didn't offend anyone.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=360D2C52-C43C-4B44-A0A3-AA052E0B216C
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam
Bottom line is that you can't abandon free speech without abandoning freedom.
We are merely custodians of the freedoms that those before us have won at their peril and owe it to future generations to fight to retain those freedoms.

Well, I think some of the comments on this article are pretty much a case in point.

If some of these people weren't allowed to publicly bang on with their bizarre views, we might not know what a bunch of wackers they really were.

romany, i respect (and use myself) the rushing-to-class defense. i think partially you expressed yourself clumsily, partially i disagree with you, and partially i am hugely sensitive on this issue.

australian seems to have no genuine understanding of free speech, that it comes at a price but the price is worth it. there is a tried and true tradition of australians declaring "i'm for free speech, but ...". what then follows makes clear they are not actually for free speech whatsoever.

in this way, i do not agree with you. i do not see "both sides". what i see are two distinct issues.

the first issue is the question of free speech. yes, yes: yelling "theatre" in a crowded fire, and so on. but you either see free speech as almost axiomatically precious, or you do not.

the second issue is, given free speech (or anyway) how does one foster a culture of thoughtfulness and respect?

the second issue is real. but it is fundamental that the second issue must not be confused with, or impact upon, the first.

are you doing that? i'm still not sure. but knoll undoubtedly is. and i think he is doing it in a distasteful and dishonestly handwringing manner.

one either believes in free speech or one does not. knoll does not.

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

David's nailed it.

Besides which, could there be any more idiosyncratically malleable notion than 'offence'?

Rather than trying to outlaw "offensive" expression, I think we should encourage more courtesy, respect and simple good manners in our interactions with each other.

No offence meant to anyone :)

Free speech in Australia has low status.

Page 3886/3 of the Current House Hansard of 16 December 1992 quoted Lionel Murphy saying, "Free speech is only what is what is left after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and of parliament, incitement and censorship..." Is "due weight" not given to free speech? "Only what is left over" means free speech has no value in itself. Any other consideration can override it. Hopefully, this is not the prevailing attitude to free speech in Australia. "Only what is left over" is consistent with the value of free speech in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Khomeini's Iran. People in all three countries had the right to say anything the government didn't ban them from saying. Free speech points out the wrongs in our society and protects cultural expressions that differ from the prevailing view. It has great value in an open society. One can examine those areas which Murphy's quote values over free speech.

Defamation has been used in both Australia and the United Kingdom to deflect criticism by such as Robert Maxwell and Jo Bjelke-Petersen. Defamation laws should be eliminated and possibly replaced by well drawn libel laws which do not provide prior restraint and do not insulate public figures from criticism.

Blasphemy is a ridiculous crime

Sedition acts have been used in many jurisdictions to prevent criticism of the government. Sedition acts generally exist where there is no concept of a loyal opposition.

Obscenity? Obscenity is difficult to define. Some do not find violence obscene. I do not find any nonviolent sexual act involving only consenting adults obscene. Some are not to my taste.

"Use of insulting words" requires extensive definition. Any words referring to my weight can be insulting, but it is not a reasonable subject for legislation.

"Official secrecy" has in the UK banned a book called "Spy-Catcher" which is available in other English speaking countries.

Contempt of parliament and the system have also been used to stifle criticism.

CJ Morgan:"Rather than trying to outlaw "offensive" expression, I think we should encourage more courtesy, respect and simple good manners in our interactions with each other."

And less leg-humping...

Still, it looks like the author has very much misjudged the mood of OLOers and I'm very glad to see it. We can only create change inasmuch as we disagree with the status quo and are prepared (and allowed) to speak up about it