Image

‘Why I, a bisexual man on the left, don’t support the anti-vilification complaint against Israel Folau’

Following the news that an LGBTQ activist was suing Israel Folau for $100,000 over his “controversial” Instagram post back in April, Caldron Pool received a comment we thought worth republishing. The comment was posted by Nicholas Butler, a “bisexual man on the left” and a law student at Monash University. While we obviously don’t agree with everything said, Nicholas offers an interesting perspective on anti-vilification complaints that folks on the Left would do well to consider. Nicholas’ comment was titled, ‘Why I, a bisexual man on the left, don’t support the anti-vilification complaint against Israel Folau’: While what he said……

Following the news that an LGBTQ activist was suing Israel Folau for $100,000 over his “controversial” Instagram post back in April, Caldron Pool received a comment we thought worth republishing.

The comment was posted by Nicholas Butler, a “bisexual man on the left” and a law student at Monash University.

While we obviously don’t agree with everything said, Nicholas offers an interesting perspective on anti-vilification complaints that folks on the Left would do well to consider.

Nicholas’ comment was titled, ‘Why I, a bisexual man on the left, don’t support the anti-vilification complaint against Israel Folau’:

While what he said was offensive, it does not constitute aggression. So it’s wrong to respond to it with aggression, including in the law.

It will increase ill will towards LGBTI people, whom some will undoubtedly hold collectively responsible for the complaint, making them look like intolerant authoritarians.

It will increase the inclination towards violence among some anti-LGBTI people, who will take the following lesson away from it: speech is pointless in having your grievances addressed, and you should use other, not-so-peaceful, means.

It will give Folau a soapbox to continue to promote his views during any hearings that take place, which increases the spread of his message, rather than decreasing it.

It will cause more people to be more hurt by his comments than otherwise were, as the media reports of his comments remind those people of them over and over again.

It will prompt some anti-LGBTI commentators to move their commentary from public to private for fear of being sued, but it won’t stop them speaking completely. The result of this will be that they will speak without encountering the moderating effect of criticism and reply. Instead they will only speak among like-minded people, which will cause their beliefs to get more hardline and extreme through the phenomenon of group polarisation. I’d rather he doesn’t say it at all, of course, but it he’s going to, it’s better that he says it publicly, not privately.

It will encourage religious conservatives to think that aggressive anti-LGBTI measures are in fact justified defensive measures that will protect them from complaints like this. Many religious conservatives continue to argue that same-sex marriage should be re-illegalised because it is a threat to religious freedom. This will make that mentality even bolder. One group even suggested that the decriminalisation of homosexuality itself is a threat to religious freedom.

It will embolden conservative demands for censorship in the name of equal rights for religious people. Many conservative commentators have demanded that religious freedom laws include a prohibition on religious vilification, which would be a de facto blasphemy law. The reasoning goes “if other people are protected from offensive speech about their sexuality, we should be protected from offensive speech about our religion.”

It will encourage, to the detriment of their mental health, members of minority groups to think that if they hear something offensive, the right action to take is legal action. This implies that what he said was a very serious matter, because only very serious matters go before courts. This is detrimental to the mental health of those minorities because if you take the view that “I cannot rest until a court declares this speech illegal”, of course you will be unhappy, because you’ve made your happiness dependent on other people. But if you take the view “what he said was offensive, but I don’t care about it and don’t need to care about it,” you’ll be a lot happier. This complaint discouraged the taking of that view.

It requires that the power to censor speech be given to the state. If such power is given to the state, there is every possibility that it will be wielded in a way that you don’t like. For example, the Tasmanian government is considering a bill that would make it illegal to refer to some natural landmarks by a name other than an official designated name if it could lead a person to think that that was its official name, a clear attempt to crack down on Aboriginal names. Once the state has that power, the only way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to make sure that it only ever falls into the hands of people who think like you do, which is impossible. Or we could just take the power away from the state to begin with.

Hate speech, of course, is not harmless. But the fact that something carries certain harms does not mean government prohibition is a good solution. Government prohibition is its own policy as well, with its own set of attendant harms and benefits, and there’s no reason to assume it will necessarily make a problem better. If, as some hate speech law proponents claim, the world is so dangerously vulnerable to something like hate speech that government prohibition is necessary, how can it simultaneously be so utopianly perfect that hate speech laws will have exactly their desired effect? The resentment of being censored that is intrinsic to human nature will guarantee unintended negative consequences. I want to reduce harm, but I want to reduce all harm, not just the harm caused by hate speech. I believe that these laws and complaints result in more overall harm, not less.

Nicholas Butler is a law student at Monash University and a commentator on freedom of speech and religion.

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
Cruz: “Biblically, We’re Commanded to Support Israel”

Cruz: “Biblically, We’re Commanded to Support Israel”

Is support for modern Israel a biblical mandate based on God’s promises to Abraham?
By
by Ben DavisJun 19, 2025
NSW Nats Torch Net Zero, Ditch Carbon Zero’s Crippling Con

NSW Nats Torch Net Zero, Ditch Carbon Zero’s Crippling Con

“Net zero has done nothing but push up the price of everything. It has done ZERO for the environment because other countries are ignoring their commitments," Senator Matt Canavan said.
By
by Rod LampardJun 19, 2025
Decriminalising Abortion Shifts the Right to Life from God to the State

Decriminalising Abortion Shifts the Right to Life from God to the State

"By legalising abortion, we are not just allowing the state to regulate life and death; we are redefining rights as privileges that can be granted and revoked by government, not as inherent gifts from God."
By
by Ben DavisJun 18, 2025
Baptist Perspectives on What Constitutes Israel

Baptist Perspectives on What Constitutes Israel

Who are the true recipients of God's covenant promises to Israel—ethnic Israel or those who are in Christ?
By
by Tim GrantJun 18, 2025
Has the Church Replaced Israel?

Has the Church Replaced Israel?

The nature of the relationship between Israel and the Church has been the subject of much misunderstanding and debate.
By
by Ben DavisJun 17, 2025
Mel Gibson: LA’s Open Borders Violence Is the Result of “Destructive Democrat Decision-Making”

Mel Gibson: LA’s Open Borders Violence Is the Result of “Destructive Democrat Decision-Making”

“We need to make our voices heard, as a community,” Gibson asserted, “because it’s clear that our elected officials don’t seem to give a damn.”
By
by Rod LampardJun 17, 2025
Bureaucrats Target Tutoring Startup After Homeschooling Surge

Bureaucrats Target Tutoring Startup After Homeschooling Surge

“Over half of our Victorian families withdrew from our programs, not because we failed them, but because they feared the system would punish them for accessing support.”
By
by Rod LampardJun 16, 2025
The End of War: From Barbarianism to Christendom

The End of War: From Barbarianism to Christendom

"Through the message of the cross, bloodthirsty warriors were remade into saints, and their warring tribes were transformed into the foundation of the greatest civilisation the world has known."
By
by Staff WriterJun 15, 2025

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.