The SMH believes hate speech can be reduced through the suggestion that would only outlaw acts that "degrade, intimidate or incite hatred or contempt" and another option which replaces the words "offend" and "insult" with the word "vilify" could show the positive effect.
The SMH points out that two of the best options for reforming race-hate laws were missing on a list of options to consider.
One is replacing the words "offend" and "insult" in section 18C with the word "vilify", the other is lawyer Ronald Sackville suggestion that would only outlaw acts that "degrade, intimidate or incite hatred or contempt" on the basis of race, which the paper believes more sensible proposal.
The SMH also explains that there is merit in the case for no change because the current 18D defence and court interpretation of 18C allow for offensive, insulting and even intimidating speech on the grounds of race. There are also risks that if changes were made to the RDA, it could send a message that such act is now acceptable and given legal sanction, as Professor Twomey warns.
The paper points out that there is a need to balance freedom of speech in a civil society with hate speech as a weapon of racism.
It suggests hate speech can be reduced through the Sackville suggestion of "degrade, intimidate or incite hatred or contempt". The "vilify" proposal also has merit.
