Hi Cohenite. References as requested.

Re Ms Heiss: “Each of those assertions was erroneous.” Three of them. (381)
Re Ms Eatock’s wealth. “The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous.” (382)
Re Ms Eatock’s motives: “That statement is untrue.” (382)
Re Ms Cole: “The facts upon which the comment is based are not stated, referred to or notorious.” (383)
Re biology: “... was shown to be factually erroneous.” (392)
The absence of significant reference to cultural upbringing “leaves an erroneous impression”. (392)
“In part, the cultural references, where given, were erroneous.” (398)
“Dr Atkinson was raised in an Aboriginal fringe camp on the ancestral lands of his Aboriginal ancestors.” (400)
“Mr Clark was raised as Aboriginal in a well-known Aboriginal community in Victoria.: (400)
“There is other evidence which also suggests to me that Mr Bolt was not particularly interested in including reference to the Aboriginal cultural upbringing of the individuals he wrote about.” (401)
Re Ms Cole’s mother: “That statement is factually inaccurate …” (402)
Re Ms Cole’s father: “That statement is factually incorrect.” (402)
Re Ms Cole’s grandmother: “Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space.” (403)
Re Prof Behrendt: “The factual assertions … were also erroneous.” (404)
Re Wayne and Graham Atkinson in the first article: “The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.” (406)
Re Graham Atkinson in the second article: Also “grossly incorrect.” (406)
Re Ms Eatock: “That source made an incorrect assertion …” (407)
Re Ms Eatock: “Mr Bolt repeated the error as to age …” (407)
And, finally, “Mr Bolt and HWT contended that the Articles contained no material errors of fact.” (364)

That’s without searching too hard. There could be more.
Apologists for the Murdoch press like Chris Kenny may characterise the errors as “unfortunate” but “hardly the central point”.

But to Bromberg they were certainly central: “The deficiencies I have relied upon in arriving at the conclusion … are about deficiencies in truth.” (386)

And: “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.” (390)

It is interesting that at paragraphs 394-399 the Judge deals with what he considers the 2 defining issues of aboriginality: biological descent and cultural factors, that is upbringing. The Judge agrees that it is legitimate to speak about aboriginality in purely biologicaly terms but castigates Bolt for, when introducing cultural defining factors, not dealing with them in a complete fashion.

So when Bolt refers to the non-aboriginal upbringing of many of the litigants, this is an error of fact by ommission because Bolt concentrated on the non-aboriginal aspect of the upbringing and did not refer any of the aboriginal upbringing.

But is this not what many of the litigants do; that is, focus entirely on their aboriginal cultural experience and ignore completely the non-aboriginal? The irony is complete when they seek redress in non-aboriginal fashion.

The people's Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has passed laws which racially discriminate in favour of "aboriginal" people, in order to try and overcome aboriginal disadvantage. Most Australians support this racial discrimnation because they approve of its intent.

The problem is, that exactly what constitutes an "aboriginal" has never been defined. And it is reasonable that most Australians would be concerned that people who are seven-eighths white, or fifteen sixteenths white, are accessing these generous benefits meant only for "aboriginals." As such, Henry Bolt's article was fair and reasonable comment.

But Henry Bolt broke the law. Because the laws against freedom of speech in this country that were implemented by a Labor minister, are so wide ranging that any negative comment about another race, culture, ethnicity, or religion is illegal. And that is what brought Bolt undone.

That these laws are an affront to the entire concept of freedom of speech, which is one of the foundation stones or western democracy, should be obvious to all. It is thinking worthy of a totalitarian state to say that it is perfectly legal to say nice things about other races, ethicities, cultures and religious, but totally illegal to say bad things about them. In a democracy, the collective values, attitudes and behaviours of no social groups should be above examination, criticism, or fair comment.

Andrew Bolt did not appeal the Federal Court's ruling, neither did his employer.

Bolt is entitled to his opinions but he should not make stuff up.

@Cohenite. The judgment not only exposes the many false assertions but also the extensive use of mockery and derision and the newspaper’s intention to sting, to confront, to offend and to upset. In such cases, what redress is appropriate?

@LEGO, what do you mean ‘what constitutes an "aboriginal" has never been defined’? Are you aware of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' working definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - first agreed to in 1981 and widely accepted since?
Regarding the matter of freedom of speech, LEGO, have you read the judgment?

@Bonmot, precisely.

I have given you examples of where the "false assertions" are problematic; the second one in relation to the lack of full disclosure about cultural factors/upbringing by Bolt is in fact the bulk of the "false assertions' and may be regarded as just ONE example which has inherent contradictions as I have explained; namely Bolt was convicted of doing the very thing the litigants do!

These litigants sought what was essentially an equitable remedy to their complaint; one of the maxims of equitable remedies is that "One who comes into equity must come with clean hands"; how can those who do what the accused does demand that the accused be punished and not themselves?

In any event, contrary to what you say about the Judgement, there were not "many false assertions" but essentially one.

As for the "extensive use of mockery and derision and the newspaper’s intention to sting, to confront, to offend and to upset." You must be joking; that would capture every cartoonist in the country except for the ratbag Leunig. But, you are right, this was the heart of the Judgement; that upsetting a protected and precious [sic] group should be illegal.

Do you really understand how repugnant that is? Especially given the grotesque events on Australia Day?