Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

18C requires non-racial remit without curbs on free speech

By Tim Wilson - posted Thursday, 22 December 2016


The case against Porteous was based on distributing booklets that argued for the existing definition of marriage in Australian law.

The case was absurd, but it is what the test in law allowed. That can't be repeated.

Adding the words vilification or hate speech would not solve the problem. They are opaque and can capture seriously offensive speech that still should be lawful.

Advertisement

A consistent and appropriately targeted test would focus on workplace harassment, which includes acts that seriously humiliate and denigrate people, causing intimidation. The other is public harassment that seriously humiliates and denigrates others to cause intimidation.

The difference between workplace and public harassment is context and intent. Speech always has a context. A workplace creates a more intimidating environment for people to express themselves - particularly because of the power relationships between employers and employees.

To trigger public harassment acts requires a known intent to cause intimidation. So abuse on public transport would be covered. But projecting challenging ideas - even those that offend, insult or humiliate, bringing culture shame - in newspapers wouldn't.

Such a law would get the balance in law right, stop frivolous cases and protect all Australians equally instead of creating special legal privileges for the select few.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

This article was first published in The Australian.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Tim Wilson is the federal Liberal member for Goldstein and a former human rights commissioner.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tim Wilson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Tim Wilson
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy