Zenaan it was difficult to read your reply. Not sure if I get your
   point.

   We have a high court that determines where the slippery slope is and
   seriously why should anyone be too worried that

   since 1975 we need to take out the ability to stop hate speech in our
   courts?

   Basically the proof is in the pudding as it were.

   Australia is not America, we don't feel the need to enshrine and wine
   about our rights.

   We prefer to stop people from behaving as dicks.

   Australia is not perfect and in some very obvious ways our social
   policies are behind

   but we are a country that is fine with robust debate and aren't easily
   fooled into believing that hate speech needs to be protected.

     ----- Original Message -----

   From:
   "Zenaan Harkness" <zen@freedbms.net>

   To:

     <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>

   Cc:

   Sent:

     Fri, 9 Sep 2016 09:17:56 +1000

   Subject:

     Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia -
     [personal@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]
     > but there is a line and that is what 18c is about.
     Please, to make your post of the extract of 18c relevant, explain if
     you
     are able why and how it is not a slippery slope (even assuming any
     or
     all aspects of that act are justifiable)
     And first, go check out, carefully, the definition of "slippery
     slope" -
     Wikipedia is a reasonable first stop on some things like that.
     Next, in your response re the slippery slope, try if you can to
     actually
     consider the viewpoint of those who hold that there might be real
     problems with 18c which must be handled, and to give acknowledgement
     to
     that position, so that your assessment can be seen as nuanced,
     rather
     than a black and white dichotomy.
     Nadine there are plenty folks much smarter than I who might
     contribute
     to such a conversation, but most of us have had a gutful of "he's a
     dick, and you're all idiots for not seeing it" superficiality.
     Finally, an actual example of a public statement by Bernard Gaynor,
     which you say ought be held by the courts as illegal, and for the
     specific reasons you name and can identify. Feel free to use the
     quote
     you've already posted, but you might find it hard to ultimately
     defend
     that as "unlawful" speech, either way let's see if you have a
     nuanced
     argument.
     Sincerely,
     Zenaan
     On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:27:03AM +0800, Nadine Earnshaw wrote:
     >
     > No the issue is public vs private speech.
     > There is also a difference between publicly stating an opinion and
     > being abusive.
     > this is what we are talking about legislatively
     >
     > RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
     >
     > OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOUR OR NATIONAL OR ETHNIC
     > ORIGIN
     >
     >              (1)  It is unlawful for a person [1] to
     > do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
     >
     >                      (a)  the act is reasonably
     > likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or
     > intimidate another person [2] or a group of people; and
     >
     >                      (b)  the act is done
     > because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the
     > other person [3] or of some or all of the people in the group.
     >
     > Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful.
     > Section 46P of the _Australian Human Rights Commission Act
     > 1986 _allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human
     Rights
     > Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not
     > necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does
     > not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of
     this
     > Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
     >
     >              (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1),
     > an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
     >
     >                      (a)  causes words, sounds,
     > images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
     >
     >                      (b)  is done in a public
     > place; or
     >
     >                      (c)  is done in the sight
     > or hearing of people who are in a public place.
     >
     >              (3)  In this section:
     >
     > _"PUBLIC PLACE " _includes any place to which the public have
     access
     > as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and
     whether
     > or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
     >
     > ----- Original Message -----
     > From: "oshwm"
     > To:"Nadine Earnshaw" , "CypherPunks"
     > Cc:
     > Sent:Thu, 08 Sep 2016 06:18:31 +0100
     > Subject:Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia -
     > [personal@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]
     >
     > So, free speech is ok so long as it is only used to say yhe things
     you
     > find acceptable? :D
     >
     > On 8 September 2016 04:09:38 GMT+01:00, Nadine Earnshaw wrote:
     > freedom of speech does not protect hate speechand that is what 18c
     > which Bernard supports being removed.
     > He is free to say
     > "I wouldn't let a gay person teach my children and I am not afraid
     to
     > say it," a Twitter post from Mr Gaynor read.
     > but there is a line and that is what 18c is about.
     >
     http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.ht
     ml
     > He is free to be a dick in private. Clearly with his being
     dismissed
     > he has trouble with what private is.