Hmmh, bit of a pattern there. Foxy leaves & Paul1405 takes over.

Paul,

That is a genuinely authoritarian attitude. The censors in Iran or Communist China would welcome you as one of their own. Who decides if a person is motivated by hatred or by concern about a real problem in society? Judges aren't mind readers. If people can't bear the truth, they should man up. If some feature of an ethnic group's culture is causing serious problems, such as binge drinking among Anglo-Australian youths, or FGM or forced marriages among migrants from some other societies, then we should have every right, and maybe even a duty, to talk about it.

Unlike David Marr, however, who simply wanted the racial vilification laws repealed, I don't have a problem with people being called to account for malicious lies, whether they are about an individual or a group. You can call it religious or racial vilification if you like, but the truth should be an absolute defence.

Beach "We" is society, us, you, me, I was not consulted directly about the 60/km hr speed limit, we elect and un-elect law makers for a purpose. These laws have been in place long before any Labor-Green anything! Referring to Goebbels. Here is one for you, Hitler said "Germany's defeat in WWI was down to the Jewish Financiers at home," and a few other things about Jews to boot, maybe if Hitler had been challenged at the time there may have never been a WWII.
"That is a genuinely authoritarian attitude" based on what Divergence "The censors in Iran or Communist China would welcome you as one of their own" can you produce some evidence to support that statement?
"binge drinking among Anglo-Australian youths" can you show how that is a cultural thing? Of course we should be able to talk about such things as "FGM or forced marriages" and those issues are freely talked about in society today, without the need for racial vilification. In my youth, I spent many a Sunday afternoon listing to "Webster" in the Sydney Domain, could say some shocking things about non whites and get away with it in our free society. My casual observance is that this debate is more about the extreme rights, right to racially vilify non whites under the guise of free speech, that anything else.

Paul1405,

No, your argument is with a real Leftie, Noam Chomsky, and you have no credibility at all in trying to turn it back on him. This is what he said and it is very simple and forthright,

"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."

You should consider the similarities between your own opinions (Far Green Left if you like) and the Far Right. Noam Chomsky puts your view, which he says is completely anathema to a Leftie, into the bucket with Goebbels and Stalin. But then a conservative or liberal would say the same about your opinions and world view.

How does one differentiate vilifying, from humiliating, from insulting, from offending ?

I'm sure that it's generally agreed that incitement to violence is out. Incitement to express hatred, probably likewise.

But these other aspects of free speech are more difficult to untangle. And can one differentiate between intentionally and unintentionally vilifying or humiliating ? Intent is notoriously difficult to 'prove'.

Perhaps there is a hierarchy, with a boundary - in my view, at least - between inciting, intentionally vilifying, intentionally humiliating, on one side,

AND,

on the other, unintentionally vilifying, unintentionally humiliating, insulting and offending.

On some blogs, I've noticed that some people feel offended if you simply disagree with them: to them, 'discussion' means 'agreement'. But it's amazing how free they feel to then, on the grounds that they have been offended by an opinion, launch the most angry, slanderous and vituperative tirade against the offender.

And another matter: do comments on the Internet or Twitter or whatever open themselves up to libel or slander ? Afre these media forms of print, or are they forms of speech ?

Just wondering :)

Joe

Joe,

At least one site in Australia was shut down because a business disliked what a poster(s)printed about their service or lack thereof; this was only last year.