No doubt you are essentially correct, Steven.. However, I think you are being a little harsh.
Lawyers in a court room may have to give at least the impression of being totally objective in the application of Law, but I think the rest of us will inevitably be a little more subjective.
If we use the quote attributed to Voltaire as a guide: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", clearly we fighting for the RIGHT, not the individual.
Still an'all, there are some whose rights I would rush to defend, and some for whom I would walk rather more slowly.
In the case of lawyers, should we think more highly of those who so vigorously defend the rights of notorious gangsters, that justice is evaded, or should we question their morality?

Antiwomen, I think you have every right to post as much boorish and offensive drivel as you like. As Grim said, "The great advantage of freedom of speech is it makes it so easy to identify the assholes".

stevenlmeyer, what exactly have you done to defend Toben's freedom of speech, beyond prattling on about it on OLO?

A corollary of my previous post is to suggest that because the fact that absolute freedom of speech neither exists or could exist in a orderly society was suggest a change in emphasis.
By that I mean getting hot and bothered about the absence of 'absolute' freedom of speech but to enter a meaningful discussion on WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE.

A recent example of irresponsibility of absolute freedom of speech was the instance where a news paper publish a story about multi state raids on drug dealers prematurely potentially compromising the police action.
The paper cried freedom of speech. But in reality they were protecting their 'scoop' with no regard to the possible consequences.

Even the Delabosca case is another example of does the people really need to know or was this simply crass commercialism regardless of the consequences.

Consider the circus that surrounded Lindy Chamberlain question FOS serve any good/justice/fairness? In short it simply stirred up prejudices and passions and made victims of those who were already victims. The question I pose here is when is it too much.

In reality FOS in our society has more to do with civil order and fairness. The notion of absolute freedom is absolute fantasy.

examinator: "Are you really making the distinction between the 'word' and the act of speaking/publishing?"

I don't understand what you are saying. There are two very different concepts you seem to be mixing. The first is the distinction between private speech and public speech. We apply different standards to each. If Toben web site had been password protected so only his private fiends could see it no one would have cared and I doubt we would be having this discussion today. But it was a public web site, so here we are.

Then there is how those thoughts are communicated. There are lots of options - say yelling in the theatre, by web site, letters to the newspaper, by bomb threats to the airport. I suspect regardless of how Toben did it, provided he was persistent about it we would end up about where we are do today. So whether it was by spoken word or not is immaterial.

If you are asking whether I am making a distinction between public and private speech - the answer is no, I didn't mention it, but I believe there is a big distinction. If you are asking if I was saying spoken word should be treated differently to other forms of communication the answer is again no, I didn't mention it, but I believe when it comes to issues surrounding free speech they should be treated no differently.

examinator: "Tell that to the victims of bullying and verbal abuse."

More confusion. Bullying and verbal abuse usually happen in private, for the obvious reason that society frowns on it and the perpetrator. Private speech isn't the issue being discussed here. If bullying did happen in public and wasn't frowned upon, then we have a problem. I don't think it is a free speech problem though. It is not the speech that is the problem. It is the bullying. There are many ways to bully, verbal bullying is but one.

RStuart,
I accept the differentiation between P&P. I thought the conversation was about public speech.
Experience that that bullying and verbal abuse/put downs isn't always in private private.
I was questioning your statement "No matter how bad the words, they can't by themselves do harm."
I have some concerns with the topic's underlying premise that Tobin's words can be separated from the probable consequences.

Grim:"In the case of lawyers, should we think more highly of those who so vigorously defend the rights of notorious gangsters, that justice is evaded, or should we question their morality?"

Good question. Notorious gangsters are still entitled to a reasoned defence, by the "thin end of the wedge" argument. What is sufficiently "notorious" behaviour to justify removal of the right to a fair and well-argued defence? Being a bikie? Perhaps being Asian and living in Cabramatta? Being male in Australia?

A barrister's stock in trade is reasoned argument and the greatest challenge is a weak case. On that basis alone we should laud those who can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, legally speaking, but there's more. We should also give them our thanks for making sure that the "thin end of the wedge" isn't permitted to slide a little further under the law. Any time a Westminster government tries reducing democratic freedoms it is down solely to the lawyers to stop it. The anti-terror laws and the Haneef case show how important good legal process is for democracy.

If a "notorious" criminal evades "justice" for a particular crime, it is entirely down to inadequate prosecution, which means the defending lawyer has done a public service by pointing it out. All in all, despite my reservations about the Family Law and the role of ambulance-chasing lawyers, good criminal barristers are a jewel in our civic crown.

CJMorgan:"Antiwomen"

thanks for that little fella. Always predictable, never original, eh?

CJMorgan:"I think you have every right to post as much boorish and offensive drivel as you like"

Absolutely correct, little fella, except for the "think" bit: we all know you wouldn't dare do anything so controversial. Besides, my posts may be offensive, they may even be boorish, but unlike anything you've ever done, people actually enjoy reading them and even learn something occasionally, I suspect

Poor inadequate little fella.