Another stimulating piece Steven.

Some later writers have associated such expression-control with religion and, perhaps in middle eastern societies that is the case .But, more often than not, in modern Western society the impetus for it seems to arise from those who have little or no religious affiliation; people who see themselves as acolytes of tolerance & respect.

As well illustrated in the UK examples you have cited, such people may be acting in the name of tolerance/respect but the outcome is intolerance for anything but the forms endorsed in their new liturgy. Some of our secularists would make triple-A fundamentalists, they have all the right attributes, all they would need is a change of labels.

And we have examples very near to home, take a look at some of the recent threads on OLO. A number of people get very offside if one expresses an non-PC opinion and, employ anything they can get away with in an attempt to silence that opinion – and, it is even worse on other more “progressive” venues.

And it is very selective :for example, it is NOT OK to offend someone because of the colour of their skin, but it IS OK to offend them because of the colour of their hair (e.g. ‘dumb blondes’ ) or, if they are obese – same offence – but different penalty!

Perhaps it is some innate human quality ?

Hang on a sec, haters. The learned Judge correctly asserts that in Australian law freedom of speech "does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, color or national or ethnic origin".

I can only wonder why it is that some people here want to defend the publication of material that offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates other people.

Do you want to be free to intimidate and humiliate others in print, Steven?

HORUS,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree. It is not merely religious fundamentalists who want to restrict free speech. I have heard climate scientists arguing that the media should not publish stories that throw doubt on global warming. There are totalitarians everywhere.

EVO, ASYMEONAKIS

I have no problem with people's religious beliefs. For all I care someone can believe in the tooth fairy. It starts going wrong when religious people demand that their beliefs systems be accorded some special "respect" or when they try to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

CJ MORGAN

Interesting intro to your post. Why are we "haters?"

I am not debating the law in Australia. Maybe the judge got the law right; maybe not. However if that is the law, if people have a right not to be offended, then we have no free speech.

Here is a concrete example of how a right not to be offended can effectively abolish free speech.

Most Australian Jews are deeply offended by attacks on Israel. Most orthodox Jews today regard Zionism as an integral part of Judaism. (It was not always so).

Must we refrain from robust debate on Israel's actions, on the very concept of a Jewish State, because to do so will offend thousands of Australians?

Are we to be prohibited from attacking Zionism under "defamation of religion" laws?

I mention Jews because I am most familiar with Jewish sensibilities. However I have known Catholics to feel deeply insulted by attacks on the Pope. Are we to be restricted from discussing the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because millions of Catholics will regard this as an attack on their religion?

It is almost impossible to say anything important without offending at least some people.

How do you imagine most religious people feel about this Guardian piece by AC Grayling?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/20/wasilla-palin-church-fire-secularism

Is Grayling to be censored because his piece offends people? Because they feel bullied by him?

These are not rhetorical question CJ MORGAN. I hope you will deal with the issues I raised

Dear Steven,

This topic has been discussed previously.

Freedom of speech is not without certain
set parameters. It does not include death
threats or trying to incite a riot, or harming
anyone. There are still certain common sense
guidelines that most civilized countries adhere to.
Racial vilification and preaching hatred (harming
someone) would not be allowed in most civilized
societies.

Stevenlmeyer. You may of misunderstood my posts. I am in full support of yours. Religions little monopoly should be watched and regulated on so many levels, and on another point, no more free rides! They pay taxes like anyone else.

CJ. You confuse me sometimes. You seem to have multi sides to your personality when it suits you. Can you explain to me other wise, just in case I have misread you.

EVO

EVO,

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

FOXY,

I don’t see how we could have discussed this before. So far as I am aware, prior to Judge Lander's ruling in the Toben case, no Australian judge declared there was a right not to be offended or insulted. This ruling, if upheld, dramatically extends limitations on free speech. It in effect destroys free speech.

Threats of violence and incitement to violence are well known exclusions to the general right of free speech. But denying the Holocaust is neither.

I am not defending Toben. The Holocaust is about as well documented as any historical event can be. Toben seems to be an extremely unpleasant follow whose Holocaust denial probably stems from a pathological hatred for Jews. But I see no allegation that he threatened anyone or incited violence.

In my previous post I examined some of the consequences of a right not to be offended or insulted. Would you like to deal with them?

Are Examinator's tedious outbursts about "uber-Zionist plots" to be prohibited on the grounds that someone may be offended?

What about advertisements for the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras? They certainly offend a whole lot of people? Are they to be proscribed?