In Intelligence Squared's first debate of 2012, six exper...
Jon Casimir, Emma Hill, Ben Birchall and Cordelia Fine di...
Literary sensation talks transgenerational trauma, genero...
The Federal Court action against columnist Andrew Bolt has sparked a heated debate between those who believe that his comments contravene the Racial Discrimination Act and those who argue that the legal action is an assault on freedom of speech and democracy.
Whether you agree or disagree with Bolt, the debate has created compelling dichotomies, pitting freedom of speech against censorship, racial discrimination against political correctness. Objective opinions are muddied by subjective reactions to the personalities involved – divisive personalities like Bolt and Geoff Clark. Bolt’s writings are deliberately provocative – but does that mean he should be silenced?
In this Talking Point discussion, our panel of Jonathan Green, Bernard Keane, Leslie Cannold and James Allan consider whether we have a right to be free from offense.
How can we balance freedom laws with moral principles, and where do we draw the line on our tolerance of hate speech? As Allan says — and this lively session demonstrates — “people don’t agree”.
Is free speech for ‘elites’ who are able to navigate the costly judicial system? And is what’s at stake in the Bolt case more than a hefty legal bill?
Tip: In your comment, you can link to a particular point in the video like this: 0m30s for the 30th second, or 4m18s for 4 minutes and 18 seconds in.
Tweet
It's easy for James Allan to say he doesn't care about offense (30m mark). As Lesley mentioned - as a white middle class male in a position of power I doubt there's much that would offend him. However for people who don't have a voice the comments of people like Andrew Bolt constantly offend and keep the balance of power firmly where it is.
Amy
03 May at 04:52PM
This woman is typical of most university professors. They actually believe that to say 'Aboriginal people are getting special benefits over other racial groups' in a newspaper will lead to a second Holocaust.
They believe that to even acknowledge race as a reality, and to have any negative comment towards any group (except white people) will lead to genocide. We as students are taught that this is a serious problem and concern, across most humanities, philosophical and arts disciplines. It is truly amazing.
The funniest thing is that this all started from an opinion based on inequality and discrimination against non-Aboriginal people who don't (allegedly) get the same state benefits as Aboriginals. But these people are saying that to even talk about this publicly is 'extremely offensive'! It is fascinating.
Lin
03 May at 10:48PM
oh my. i believe the earth is flat, americans dont exist, jesus was gay, cleanliness is next to selfpity and religion is where sad people go when the booze runs out. but will our liberal media listen? the resentment here is lovely this timeof year. bring on the agitated horsespeople. [serves 3 - 4.]
oh yes. and whitemen smell funny. everything is say and think is true. amen
lachlann stephens
17 May at 09:55AM
ps: that should have read: everything I say and think is true. etc.
lachlann
17 May at 09:57AM