Dear ChrisGaff1000 it is a crime to be a bigot in Australia. See the laws on racial vilification. I don't think it should be a crime to be a bigot and we don't generally edit on the basis of bigotry.

We do edit on the basis of quality, and if all someone is offering is a low-grade rant, then there is a chance that they won't be allowed to start a thread.

That doesn't mean that a low quality rant will be deleted if it occurs in the course of a thread.

Censorship means that a particular view can't be presented. There is very little that we would censor, but we might require you to express yourself in reasonable language.

I approved PJack's piece of bigotry to start a thread, so I'm not sure what your complaint actually is.

The comment that I deleted from him was abuse of another commenter.

[Deleted. Arguing about moderation. Breach of site rules.]

Everyone has biases. All we can hope is that each of us look openly and honestly at what is being said and judge the intention and essence of the argument without knee jerk reactions. I certainly have read far worse than PJack's comments which, looking through it again, were mild and merely putting forward an argument.

I note over the various times I have visited OLO there has been no incidences that I recall where abuse directed to an atheist or a Green has been censored in the same way. However, in the interests of free speech letting comments stand often say more about the poster than the recipient (excepting of course highly abusive posts).

Offence is a funny thing. Someone may be offended by creationism another person offended that someone is offended by creationism. Are people these days too easily offended? Can one argue or challenge a point without being offended by the fact that others might disagree or have a different world view.

GrahamY,
I fear you are getting your views of the law mixed up.
Yes there are laws that make racial vilification a crime though it is almost impossible to prove since that requires a definition of vilification first and there is no codification of definitive vilification yet available the best the prosecutors can hope for is a guilty plea by some unsuspecting dunderhead.
Personally I believe there is nothing wrong with healthy racism provided it is the truth.
A black man is a black man and a white man is a white man.
They have proven differences in their brain capacities and their intellectual capabilities so to call a person a black bastard if they are black and they have no idea who their father was then that cannot be construed as being racist.
However having said that after 40 odd years as a law officer I have never come across a law that even mentioned the word bigot.
Perhaps you can enlighten me and the rest of the forum where we can read about these laws dealing with bigots.
As far as editing (censoring) based on quality and rantings I draw your attention to the scribings of one "One under God" whos meaningless prattling clutters up the whole board and only lead to dissent.

"

OUG has as much right to post his opinions as anyone else, chrisgaff1000. If you don't like his posts you can just ignore them or move to a different forum.

Dear Chris,

Why don't you Google the
Racial Discrimination Act? I'm surprised that as
someone who claims to be a law officer you seem not
to be aware of it as well as the fact that people
who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom
of speech is limited by the right of others. All
modern societies including democratic ones put
various limitations on what people may say. They prohibit
certain types of speech that they believe might harm
the government or the people. We have laws against
libel, slander, public decency, and hate speech, and violence.
And as a law offcer you should be well aware of that.
And calling someone a "black bastard" just as calling
someone a "ni**er" today would not be acceptable to most
people.