The proposal would have removed the words "offend", "insult", and "humiliate" from Section 18C, leaving only "intimidate" as the proscribed conduct [1].
The amendments were developed in response to the 2011 *Eatock v Bolt* case, where columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have breached Section 18C over articles questioning the Aboriginal identity of fair-skinned Indigenous Australians [2].
在 zài 该案 gāi àn 中 zhōng , , 专栏作家 zhuān lán zuò jiā Andrew Andrew Bolt Bolt 因 yīn 发表 fā biǎo 质疑 zhì yí 浅色 qiǎn sè 皮肤 pí fū 原住民 yuán zhù mín 澳洲 ào zhōu 原住民 yuán zhù mín 身份 shēn fèn 的 de 文章 wén zhāng 而 ér 被 bèi 认定 rèn dìng 违反 wéi fǎn 第 dì 18C 18C 条 tiáo [ [ 2 2 ] ] 。 。
Attorney-General George Brandis championed the changes as protecting "free speech," famously stating in Parliament that people have "a right to be a bigot" [3].
The claim accurately describes the effect of the proposed amendments: by removing "offend" and "insult" from the Act, conduct that merely offended or insulted based on race would no longer be actionable under Section 18C, and therefore compensation would not be payable for such conduct [4].
However, the proposal faced significant internal opposition within the Coalition, including from Indigenous parliamentarians and moderates, and was eventually abandoned by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in August 2014 [5].
**The proposal was abandoned and never became law.** The claim presents the amendments as if they were implemented policy, when in fact they were proposed changes that were ultimately dropped by the government after internal backlash and public opposition [5].
**The context was the Andrew Bolt case.** The amendments were directly prompted by the 2011 Federal Court decision in *Eatock v Bolt* (2011) FCA 1103, where Justice Bromberg found that Andrew Bolt's newspaper articles breached Section 18C.
The Bolt case became a rallying point for free speech advocates who argued Section 18C was too broad [2].
**Labor's position and history.** Section 18C was originally introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1995.
* * * * 背景 bèi jǐng 是 shì Andrew Andrew Bolt Bolt 案 àn 。 。
Labor consistently opposed the Coalition's proposed changes, arguing they would weaken protections against racism [6].
**The narrow scope of actual cases.** Despite claims about "free speech," successful Section 18C cases were relatively rare.
Between 1995 and 2014, there had been very few successful complaints under Section 18C, and the Bolt case was one of the most high-profile [4].
**Internal Coalition divisions were significant.** The claim's second source refers to internal backlash - this included opposition from Indigenous Coalition MPs, ethnic community leaders within the Liberal Party, and moderate Liberals who argued the changes would send the wrong message about racism in Australia [1][3].
This article from March 2014 accurately reported on internal Liberal Party concerns about the changes [1].
**Sydney Morning Herald (Source 2):** The SMH is one of Australia's major metropolitan newspapers with a centrist to center-left editorial position.
This represents a genuine policy divide between the parties: Coalition governments (particularly the Abbott government) sought to narrow Section 18C on free speech grounds, while Labor governments have maintained and defended the broader protections against racial vilification.
Attorney-General George Brandis contended that the Bolt case demonstrated how the law could be used to silence controversial opinions, even when those opinions were genuinely held.
The government's argument was that while racial vilification should be illegal, merely "offending" someone should not be unlawful in a free society [3].
**Critics' position:** Opponents argued that removing "offend" and "insult" would gut the legislation, making it impossible to address casual racism and creating a loophole for racial vilification disguised as "free speech." Indigenous leaders and ethnic communities were particularly concerned, arguing the changes would remove protections they had relied on since 1995 [1][7].
**The outcome:** Faced with internal party opposition from Indigenous MP Ken Wyatt and others, plus public backlash, Prime Minister Abbott announced in August 2014 that the government would "no longer seek to amend" Section 18C.
The proposal was dropped entirely, and the Racial Discrimination Act remained unchanged [5].
**Comparative context:** Section 18C-style laws exist in various forms across Australian states and internationally.
The debate reflects a genuine tension between free speech principles and protections against racial discrimination - reasonable people disagree on where the line should be drawn.
The Coalition's position was in line with some free speech advocacy organizations, while Labor's position aligned with anti-racism and Indigenous rights groups.
The claim accurately describes what the proposed amendments would have done - removed "offend" and "insult" from Section 18C, which would have eliminated compensation liability for such conduct.
However, the claim presents this as established fact without critical context: (1) these were *proposed* amendments, not enacted law, (2) the proposal was abandoned due to internal and external opposition, (3) the amendments never took effect, and (4) Section 18C remained unchanged.
其 qí 表述 biǎo shù 暗示 àn shì 这是 zhè shì Coalition Coalition 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 实际上 shí jì shàng 它 tā 只是 zhǐ shì 一个 yí gè 被 bèi 放弃 fàng qì 的 de 提案 tí àn 。 。
The framing suggests this was Coalition policy when it was actually a abandoned proposal.
The claim accurately describes what the proposed amendments would have done - removed "offend" and "insult" from Section 18C, which would have eliminated compensation liability for such conduct.
However, the claim presents this as established fact without critical context: (1) these were *proposed* amendments, not enacted law, (2) the proposal was abandoned due to internal and external opposition, (3) the amendments never took effect, and (4) Section 18C remained unchanged.
其 qí 表述 biǎo shù 暗示 àn shì 这是 zhè shì Coalition Coalition 的 de 政策 zhèng cè , , 而 ér 实际上 shí jì shàng 它 tā 只是 zhǐ shì 一个 yí gè 被 bèi 放弃 fàng qì 的 de 提案 tí àn 。 。
The framing suggests this was Coalition policy when it was actually a abandoned proposal.