Two points Alan. The proposed Roxon Bill goes much too far in limiting freedom of speech - it was and remains a trojan horse. Secondly, many of the so called lies for which Bolt was convicted seem to me to be either truths or matters of opinion. For example an aboriginal activist (Tasmania) made exactly the same main comment as did Bolt, but was not charged. I understand he apologised when his error was explained to him - however that proves my point.

I wonder if the bill has exemptions for members of parliament as so
many other acts that have been through parliament over the years.
Of course there is parliamentary privilege but that is not to what I refer.

With an election coming up they could continue to insult Tony Abbott and he would have no recourse to law.
But no one could say anything that offended a politician.

G’day Pliny. How’s Perth?

Interesting points. Not sure how valid.

Which section in the draft “goes much too far in limiting freedom of speech”?

Have you read it, Pliny? The freedom of speech provision – Section 18D of Part IIA of the current Act – remains completely untouched. No?

So I’m curious to know which paragraphs in the proposed revision are problematic.

No, I’m pretty sure the Eatock v Bolt judgment does not allow you to say “many of the so called lies for which Bolt was convicted seem to me to be either truths or matters of opinion.”

The judge was explicit here. He clearly distinguished between Bolt’s opinions and asserted facts.

“The fair comment defence only applies to a comment AS DISTINCT FROM a statement of fact. The basis for DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN a comment and a statement of fact was discussed by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ in Channel Seven Adelaide …” (355) [Emphasis added]

So Bromberg makes a definite distinction, doesn’t he?

“Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides NO VALID BASIS FOR THE LAW TO CURTAIL THE EXPRESSION OF OPINION. The fair comment defence at common law EXTENDS TO PROTECT OPINIONS, even those that reasonable people would consider to be abhorrent.” (353)

So there was no issue with Bolt’s offensive and obnoxious racist opinions.

Bolt lost purely because so many statements of 'fact' were lies.

Bromberg found serious damage done to the reputations of Bolt’s victims when he accused them of intentional financial fraud by asserting factual matters that were simply false. They were just typical Murdoch ‘made up sh#t’.

The judge found asserted facts “untrue”, “gratuitous references” based on “a selective misrepresentation”, omissions which “meant that the facts were not truly stated”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous”, and several contentions “incorrect” or “grossly incorrect”.

It was the lies and only the lies. Bromberg found at least 19. In two articles. He could hardly be clearer.

Have you read the judgment, Pliny?

Cheers, AA

Hi again Bazz,

Yes, politicians seem to operate under different rules from the rest of us.

On the one hand they do have parliamentary privilege. On the other, they have to be able to cop fairly serious abuse without recourse.

Witness all the 'ditch the witch' and 'Bob Brown's bitch' and 'Juliar' slogans which have wallpapered Australia's recent political discourse.

Not sure Tony Abbott is the vulnerable one here ...

Cheers, AA