Hello again JD,

Re: “In any case, Bolt was not convicted of making errors, he was convicted of giving offence, that's what 18C of the act is about.”

False, JD. Just plain wrong.

Journos give offence every day. I give offence about once a month. I’ve written disparagingly about you Aussies. Sometimes about us Froggies. I upset the Poms recently regarding the monarchy. It’s perfectly acceptable under the RDA to offend racial groups.

But it is NOT permitted to give offence by making up sh!t, like Bolt and other Murdoch hacks do. Our offensive opinions must be based on accurate facts.

Please read the judgment, JD. Especially on Freedom of Expression, from para 336.

Hi again Cohenite,

You’re also still labouring under the misapprehension that Bolt was pinged for offensive opinions. He wasn’t. It was the distortions and fabrications.

If Blacksteamtrain had lied, he would be at risk also. He didn’t. So he’s home free.

Cohenite, please, for goodness sake, read what Bromberg actually wrote:

Bolt’s racism was proven by “assertions [that] were erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous,” statements that are “untrue”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous” and inferences which “leave an erroneous impression”.

"The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth …"

“The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.”

"Expressions made on the basis of untrue or distorted facts or without due care to avoid distortions of the truth are not likely to involve a conscientious approach to the task of honouring the values asserted by the RDA.”

“The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified …”

Finally, compellingly, "Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."

Bolt lost because he lied. Twenty times. Not because of his opinions. It is that simple.

Don’t let Murdoch’s lying lawyers fool you, Cohenite.

Cheers, AA

Hey AA. I promise if you read this, God won't strike you blind.
That promulgator of evil and lies, The Australian, trounces Fairfax. Go on, AA, take a chance!

'The paper [The Australian] won the top award for daily newspapers with circulations of more than 90,000, with the judges declaring The Australian had "scored highly for its ability to break news, and its political and business coverage, as well as the depth of its opinion and quality of its senior writers".'
That wicked Andrew Bolt is one of those "senior writers."

Do you now "see" what's happening while your head is in the sand? I'll bet not.

"Readers would be advised to look up Elizabeth Warren, current candidate for the US Senate and Keynote speaker at President Obama's upcoming convention.
'She represented herself as having native American roots and plenty has been written of her using this to gain an advantage in employment.
The difference is that in the US you are allowed to have an opinion on this.
'In Australia you are not.
"It is that simple."
Posted by Belfast, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 7:40:08 AM

allowed to have an opinion on what? Elizabeth Warren's ancestry? That 30 yrs ago she glibly reflected on family folklore?

Bolt was convicted for giving offence, that's what 18c is about:

18c

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private,
if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people;
and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic
origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the
group. Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 22
allows people to make complaints to the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act
is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act
does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of
this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in
private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the
public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

"(3) In this section:
'public place' includes any place to which the public have access as of right
or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is
made for admission to the place.

Like I said, the alleged inacuracies only came into it

My last line should have read:

Like I said, the alleged inaccuracies only came into it in relation to the secondary issue of whether Bolt was to be excused for giving offence. The judge used the alleged inaccuracies to suport his opinion that the good faith excuse did not apply to Bolt. The essence of the conviction was that Bolt offended the litigants - which is a violation of the vital and fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Hey Born Free.

I promise that if you stop reading Murdoch papers and become informed, God won't strike you blind.

That award was from PANPA. Who runs The Australian? Who runs PANPA?

The Australian also recently won the OLO Award for the Shonkiest Page One 'Scoop' This Century.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13338

“That wicked Andrew Bolt is one of those ‘senior writers’.” Afraid not. Bolt doesn’t write for The Australian. Never has.

Whose head is in the sand, Born Free?

Hello again J Dawson,

Re: “The essence of the conviction was that Bolt offended the litigants – which is a violation of the vital and fundamental right to freedom of speech.”

No, you are still misunderstanding this completely.

Section 18C is only a part of the matter. The section dealing with freedom of speech is 18D. This was the subject of much more of the court’s deliberations than 18C.

Specifically, please try to understand this, JD:

(start quote) Section 18D

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. (end quote)

There is clear, explicit exemption for journalists to express whatever opinion the wish – PROVIDED it is a fair and genuine.

This is where Bolt and the Herald Sun failed. Their articles were riddled with so many distortions and lies there was no way anyone could find them as anything other than vicious racist attacks.

The specific finding that Bolt and the newspaper perpetrated racial hatred and vilification and warrant the 'racist' label is in the suck-it-up-princess paragraph – 458.

Cheers, AA