Even the truth could offend someone.
Should truth be illegal?
Shockadelic,
you hit the nail on the head.

Paul,

Foxy left the debate rather than choose between either agreeing that truth should be no defence under the racial vilification laws or agreeing that the laws are too broad, as David Marr said, and thus supporting the Liberals' position. What is your opinion on this? Is it good for democracy if unpleasant truths can't even be discussed for fear of legal action?

Paul1405,

I am asking you if it was racist, since you originated the thread and you set yourself up an an expert. Because to suit your slant you labelled a man as an Aborigine when according to police reports he did not identify himself as such. As well, in that case you conveniently ed the obvious to find 'racism'. For instance, you deliberately did not mention the two women's attack on other passengers and particularly the women with a pram.

So here is the question once again, Gold Coast a bus and apparently similar most would think:

what sort of attacks are these?

http://www.news.com.au/national/surfside-buslines-driver-left-bloodied-after-shocking-attack-at-southport/story-fncynjr2-1226860933707

Specifically now, how did you arrive at 'Australian racism' in one case but not in the more recent cases I linked to, and especially where the victim in the case you asserted to be an example of 'Australian racism' didn't identify as indigenous? Do you know better than the victim?

My "As well, in that case you conveniently ed the obvious to find 'racism'" should be "As well, in that case you conveniently overlooked the obvious to find 'racism'."

Divergence, I agree with the findings of Justice Bromberg in the Bolt case. Aside from the finding that Bolt was wrong in fact, that in itself is an entirely different issue. I don't think any reasonable person would accept a "Haters" right to free speech, where they simple use lies to racially insult, vilify and denigrate people. Although at times it may be difficult to establish if a statement is in fact true or false.
Justice Bbromberg went beyond the point of fact or fiction to say Bolt had humiliated and intimidated people, regardless whether his material was true or false. That is the crux of the matter, should you be able to use truthful free speech for the purpose of vilification, I say no. In an ordered and just society we have established rules governing what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and that applies to free speech as it does to most other endeavors in life.

Paul 1405, "..we have established rules governing what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and that applies to free speech.."

Who is 'we'?

Where and when was there any consultation with the public? Isn't 'we' simply a lobby of activists with the ear of the previous Labor-Greens government?

As I posted previously, authoritarianism disguises itself as left thinking in present day Australia. This is what a real Leftie would say:

"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)