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

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.

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.