THE law does treat race differently: it is not unlawful to publish an article that insults, offends, humiliates or intimidates old people, for instance, or women, or disabled people. Professor Joseph, director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University, said in principle ''humiliate and intimidate'' could be extended to other anti-discrimination laws. But historically, racial and religious discrimination is treated more seriously because of the perceived potential for greater public order problems and violence.
Ahaaa. Now I get it! We've been doing it wrong.
Racial villification is against the law because it might be more likely to lead to violence than villifying women, the elderly or the disabled.
Interesting debates and articles about free speech and discrimination are bobbing up and down in the flotsam and jetsam of the Bolt decision. Much of it seems to hinge on some kind of legal see-saw around notions of a bad law about bad words.
I've always been a proponent of the sticks and stones philosophy. For those not familiar, it's the principle behind a children's nursery rhyme.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones
But words will never hurt me
But I'm increasingly disturbed by the hateful culture of online comment. I am a very strong proponent of the human right to free expression, and abhor censorship, but I'm seriously sick of "My right to free speech" being used as the ultimate excuse for people using words to denigrate, humiliate, intimidate, belittle and attack others, particularly women.
We should defend a right to free speech, but condemn hate speech when ever and where ever we see it. Maybe we actually need to get violent to make this stop? Surely not.