Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975,[1] deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia.
[23]: summary paras 17–20 He did not accept that 18D should provide a defence because he considered that the text contained "erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".
[27] Bolt himself described the decision as a "terrible day for free speech" in Australia and said it represented "a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves".
[29] In 1995, left-wing ABC journalist Phillip Adams argued against the provision, saying that a better response to expressions of racial hatred was "public debate, not legal censure".
[30] While some conservative politicians have claimed the bar for breaching 18C is too low,[31][32] courts have consistently shown that this is not the case, and to fall within 18C the speech must have "... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights".
The government argued that the Act unduly restricted free speech in Australia, by making "insult" and "offence" the test for breach of the law.
In March 2013, George Brandis released draft amendments for community consultation, and announced that the proposed changes would "strengthen the Act's protections against racism, while at the same time removing provisions which unreasonably limit freedom of speech."
[34][37] The draft amendments had met with criticism from the ALP, Liberal MP Ken Wyatt, and an alliance of racial minority representatives including Jewish lobby groups concerned with Holocaust denial in the media.
[38][39][40][41][42] The question of amendment re-emerged during the term of the Turnbull government amid controversy over the pursuit of university students and cartoonist Bill Leak under 18C.