Thank you Graham for a balanced and thoughtful discussion of this case. Although I expected the decision to be what it was, given the broad nature of the leislation, I was surprised by Justice Bromberg's emphasis on the 'tone' of the Bolt article and on Bolt's use of sarcasm in that article. What are we coming to when judges, as you rightly point out, can interpret what one might have meant rather than confining themselves to what one actually said?

No doubt others will comment on the sloppy research underpinning Bolt's piece and I readily concede that point but it cannot be against the law to be sloppy, even though one might receive professional criticism for being so.The repeal of this noxious law is long overdue. Fortunately the Bolt case has made repeal much more likely

I'm no legal expert, but from what I've read and heard there is quite a good chance of this decision being overturned on appeal. Shouldn't we wait for the outcome of any appeal before we start counting chickens?

From any reasonable perspective, the decision in Eatock v Bolt is loud and clear: don't tell lies and make false claims about the motives of people based on their ethnicity.

If the Coalition turns this into an attack on free speech, race laws and Aborignal people upon their ethics be it.

But Bolt has yet to explain where he got his (false) information about the nine claimants from and until he does so, he will forever be remembered as a hate writer.

He attacked a Muslim school in Melbourne for failing its students in VCE - when, in fact, the students do the much harder International Baccalaureate.

He lost NewsCorp shareholders $2 million dollars when he defamed Victoria's deputy chief magistrate and now, one wonders, how much more will he cost shareholders?

I disagree with the ruling. I don't see how Bolt's articles constituted racial discrimination. There is an obvious case for defamation, which no doubt would have been successful based on the findings on this case by Justice Bromberg.

However, I disagree that this case, should it hold up at appeal, could be detrimental to democracy and free speech. The basis of the finding was that Bolt's facts were wrong, and he knew it. "Sloppy journalism" is a cop-out for Bolt sympathisers.

Democracy relies on people having a voice. It also relies on people being properly informed. Without either of these, the democracy itself is corrupt and loses its credibility.

If distortions of truth, omission of facts and lies are not removed from free speech, it becomes freedom to deceive. Such deceit would not be tolerated in any other profession. Why should journalists, who hold positions of authority as professionals in public discourse, not be held to account like any other profession.

paulr .. are you a shareholder in News Corp? Probably not, I am, and I am very happy for the organisation to fund BoltA for whatever it takes to challenge bad laws, as I believe the majority of shareholders are - we don't want the company's product to become like other Australian newspapers and just become poor quality scrap paper. There's a reason the other new companies share price is tanking, the product is heavily biased towards people who don't even buy it, but whine continuously about everything they don't like.

Moving on .. Whether BoltA is right or wrong, all the time, is beside the point.

The point is you have someone who is not afraid of the politically correct police and asks hard questions .. he is bound to offend. This has a place in Australian society, heis not a classic wild colonial oy, but plays the role.

My concern is the empowerment of those who "take offence", it is the new cultural defence.

We are encouraging censorship by the offended, and the people who are in the business of victimhood who regularly take this offence, because they can .. it gives them momentary attention, possibly compensation.

I believe the "victims" will end up regretting their stands as this is more and more becoming something a major party needs to address to appeal to their constituents.

The law is wrong and bad, as it only assists a portion of the community to attack other parts of our community. We used to just ignore or toughen up against criticism, now we reach for a lawyer, disgusting.

BoltA is not racist, and the left seem not to worry about what he says, but what he "means" in their tiny little imaginative worlds.

Thanks for an interesting summary of the issue, Graham. I hope nobody assumes my comment with respect to the judge's Jewish heritage was motivated by anti-semitism. I was simply drawing attention to it as a possible factor informing his judgement. We all have predispositions and community influence can be a strong one, especially that of a close-knit community like that of Melbourne's Jewry. I'm sure his Law is nonetheless sound, even if the particular interpretation might not survive an appeal.