In the comment to which you replied I'm merely countering the claim that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so", with respect to speech.

Mind you, I did admit the example was simplistic, but it captured the essence of the three most contentious classes of prohibited speech without verbosity.

The only claims I have made with respect to free speech are that:

a) Australians have no constitutional right to free speech.

b) There are laws that criminalise certain kinds of speech.

c) There is no constitutional impediment to the creation of new laws which criminalise other forms of speech.

d) Political speech enjoys some protection.

If free speech only covers things that others might find acceptable, then it is completely meaningless.