The SMH argues that section 18C needs refining, not scrapping and the biggest threats to free speech in Australia are defamation and suppression order laws that give the rich and powerful an unfair advantage.
Section 18C makes it unlawful to do something that is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race or ethnicity.
Section 18D of the Act allows a defence for actions done reasonably and in good faith connected to.
The real issue concerning 18D is whether the term "good faith" is too loose and ill-defined so as to make the defence difficult to predict and access.
The real issue concerning 18C is whether the words "offend" and "insult" are so loose as to encourage relatively frivolous cases and as such impose an unjustifiable limit to free speech.
The SMH has suggested that the terms "vilify" and "incite hatred" would be better than "offend" and "insult". Outgoing HREOC president Gillian Triggs agrees that using vilify to replace insult and offend "could be a very useful thing to do".
In any case, the real threats to free speech in Australia don't come from 18C. They come from laws that allow the rich to use the courts to silence critics and gain payouts for having their "reputation" damaged. If those demanding an end to 18C are serious about free speech, they should direct their anger at defamation laws, suppression orders and the commercial in confidence rules.
The biggest threats to free speech in Australia are defamation and suppression order laws that give the rich and powerful an unfair advantage over everyone else whose feelings might have been hurt.
If those demanding an end to 18C are serious about free speech, they should direct their anger at defamation laws and suppression orders.
