Talk:Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Untitled
Lack of a "criticism" section.

If the Act forbids "offending" people then it is clear that the Act does not just violate Freedom of Association (which must logically include the freedom to not associate - i.e. to not employ or do business with), if there is no freedom to "offend" people then Freedom of Speech is also ended by the Act. Clearly criticism of the Act, that it violates Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech, should be included in the article.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:C82E:881E:47A5:4FB5 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Scenario
My people are horribly offended, insulted and humiliated because your people do not believe the lies my people spread about your people. Therefore, you and your people must be punished. Because I am offended, insulted and humiliated it is obvious that you are offensive, insulting and humiliating and therefore you must be punished, regardless of the fact that you were telling the truth.

The proposed changes to the law, that the wording be changed to 'Harass' are fairer far less likely to be used for political purposes. Further, it allows for criticism and free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.155 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Should they be punished?
I am offended, insulted and humiliated by people in the mainstream Australian media and politics who state that those who wish to change the law are promoting racism...racism...racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.155 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003002038/http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1903/andrew-bolt-freedom-of-speech-in-australia---speech-made-by-paul-howes/ to http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1903/andrew-bolt-freedom-of-speech-in-australia---speech-made-by-paul-howes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wotton v Qld
An IP User 2001:8003:6BD6:EB00:C539:B281:A413:17AF added] a good summary of an important decision, Wotton v Queensland (No 5). The only real issue with the edit was that it was included in Section 18C: Prohibition on offense, insult, humiliation or intimidation. Wotton v Qld did not concern offence, insult etc. Accordingly I moved it under Prohibition of racial discrimination in certain contexts along with some minor changes. This edit was reverted by IP user 1.144.110.43 with the edit summary "Case summary should be included with other cases. Doesn't make sense moving to another section". My explanation as to why I have reinstated the edit is that the other case summaries only concern section 18C & are under the heading of 18C. Wotton v Qld does not concern section 18C & so needs to be in a different section. Find bruce (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposals for law reform
User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lunaibis is confused in this section about possible POV. They are confused and possibly not aware of the context no being Australian. They appear to not have read any of the supporting references either.

This section makes clear two facts (ie not POV) 1. That conservative Australian politicians believe the bar for breaching 18C is too low. This is their opinion presented faithfully. However, it is an opinion not based in reality given the second fact: 2. Courts have consistently shown that this is not the case.

Where Lunaibis is confused is their lack of understanding and context being a non-Australian. This is made very clear in this section so I am not sure where their confusion lies. Contextually, some conservative politicians have continually claimed (as supported in the references) that the words 'offense and insult' set a legal bar that is too low ie people going to court over mere slights. This does not occur in reality given courts have already ruled that the speech must have 'profound and serious effects'. Judge rulings in Australia become law through precedent, therefore the article is obligated to point out that the claim from some conservative politicians is false.

Please do not revert without: a. understanding Australian law b. reading all supporting references c. providing a sound justification.

As it stands, your edits only serve to push a POV by given it equal standing and validity when (as explained above) it is not based in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6B0B:4B00:3C11:FE43:E69D:F982 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)