This is very much a vexing question for me. How do you balance a persons right to "free Speech" and at the same time respect the rights of the individual to peace and harmony free from those who would use this unqualified right to vilify others. There would not be much of a problem if all in society had an equal say, and those that were vilified could retort with equality, but society is not like that, besides it would be a awful place if there was hate speech everywhere.

Foxy, it is interesting in your drum link that Michael Gawenda does say;
"That's because inevitably, sooner or later, Bolt would write a column that I would refuse to publish. And then I'd have a martyr to free speech on my hands."

YEBIGA, very interesting comments "You can't change people's hearts with prefecture" In the ideal would there is no need to change people's hearts, all their hearts are in the right place, but what do we do in the short term?

Foxy, this law has nothing to do with whether your statements were "factual" or not.

You don't even need to prove any offence actually occurred.
All you need is for your "act" (not speech) to be judged LIKELY to offend, insult, etc.
Likely.
Since when do we make laws about "likely" subjective perceptions!

If Bolt's statements weren't factual, why wasn't he sued for libel/defamation instead?

Paul1405
In the short and long term, you allow and encourage people to express whatever wisdom or nonsense they possess. For the visible evil can be death with and confronted. As children we learn from our errors. We do not pick up the tools of oppressors because we believe ourselves to be right.

For heavens sake, this is all in our constitutions these are fundamentals. The reason that free speech is a fundamental is precisely because without it oppression of the worst sort is enabled. Thus we permit the lunatic to speak so that the worst excesses can be heard. Once you begin to dabble with this the devil has his foot in the door and the worst crimes are always inevitable.

Is this not apparent? Who would think that we would be conducting crusades and justifying torture of prisoners? There are in our western constitutions and our common law, the wisdom of the ages, which we discard and ignore with impudence and then wonder why we are engaged in the repetition of past horrors. We invaded Iraq on false pretences and we are still their looting and pillaging.

When our kids occupied the city square in Melbourne we permitted our mayor to call on the police and violently throw them out. We are a craven society, an embarrassment to our forebears who fought with their blood with rights we relinquish as inconveniences.

Why are we so afraid of mere words but to protect our safe illusions, to avoid facing our complete surrender to a lifestyle of total banality. We are run by adolescent boys who never pass the stage of measuring the size of their organs.

Thus whilst our craven politicians and our media can continue to deny and enable the worst crimes to be conducted, whilst every political leader will deny the Israeli genocide of Palestinians - it is incumbent on all thinking people to deny the holocaust too

Dear Shocker,

May I politely suggest that you read the following
link and perhaps it will clarify things for you
regarding the importance of facts:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

However where the ABC 'trifles' with the facts and the recent claims that the RAN burned an illegal immigrant's hands and tortured him, it is merely extending things a bit.

As I posted previously, authoritarianism disguises itself as left thinking in present day Australia.

This is what real lefties would believe,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky

YEBIGA,

Just a small point, why on earth would we have wanted. or have been asked, to invade Northern Ireland because of the IRA?
The place was invaded centuries ago and is still occupied by the invaders.