Hi Paul,

It should not be illegal to be a drunkard, or a perv, or to let one's rented premises go to rack and ruin, although, of course, such life-paths should not be promoted or celebrated. And how do you stop anybody from being a bigot ? Wouldn't it be more effective to confront such bigotry with reasoned arguments ? Maybe not much, but neither can you give such people brain transplants either. Let bigots have their stupid say, as long as they don't incite violence or go beyond the bounds of offending.

But I don't think that free speech includes the right to deliberately humiliate, or vilify, or intimidate. How to draw the boundary between free speech and those aspects would be difficult, but the right to express an opinion that is offensive to someone somewhere should be quite legal.

Joe

Abbott and Brandis (not) as civil libertarians and champions of free speech.
Paul1405,
On what to you base this baseless allegation ? Just because you're a champion of idiocy ?
I have seen footage from Manus island where the so-called refugees had pictures everywhere of the bloke that got killed. Are we now supplying photocopiers to them to promote incitement ?
The reason they got so upset is because they have not fulfilled their orders to invade Australia, nothing else.

Dear Is Mise,

Here's a link especially for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/27036.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/inspiring-tale-of-former-refugee-dr-munjed-al-muderis-and-war-hero-michael-swain-fncynjr2-1226849124080

This one you need to scroll down to the "Web results"
until you come to the heading "Inspiring tale of former refugee
Dr Munjed Al Muderis and war hero..." click on it.

And :

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/opinion/17sallis.html

@Foxy,

So one "refugee" became a war hero.

WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?

Joe,

I am with you, I did say I don't see a problem with people exercising free speech as long as it was confined to accepted social norms (difficult what are these accepted social norms). At present for me its not to include in your words
"But I don't think that free speech includes the right to deliberately humiliate, or vilify, or intimidate." (agree)
"How to draw the boundary between free speech and those aspects would be difficult"
"but the right to express an opinion that is offensive to someone somewhere should be quite legal." This is the gray area. I'll give you a hypothetical see what you think.
I have a neighbor, and since we were once friends I know a lot of private and personal things about his past. We have a falling out, would it be all right for me to write a letter highlighting the "ugliness" of this person and make public in this letter I write those private and personal thing, and put it in the neighborhood letter boxes with my name on it. I'm not telling any lies its all true, I'm only exercising free speech and alerting the neighborhood to some info that I feel is in their interest to know.
It might be offensives to him, but my aim was not to offend and humiliate, but to act in the public interest.

SPQR,
Don't pay much attention to Foxy's links. The one above is from Eva Sallis, an academic socialist (look her up) and then there is foxy's usual of New Matilda.