Bolt is not racist, surely he can say what and how he feels.
Although my forbears came from Scotland I am not Scottish, I am Australian, full stop. When I look at most Aborigine descendants most have a very distinct white colouring of Skin, why do they persist in being Aborigine when in actual fact they are of Australian descent from white Australians, get over it half and quarter cast Aborigines, I am sure you would not want to return to the days of boomerang throwing and catching snakes, no more than I want to eat Hagis. I do like your dream time dances which to be hoped will always be part of you, the same as I like Scottish reels but that does no mean I too have to be still doing Scottish reels or wearing a tartan skirt.
Andrew an article well written and most Australians would agree with you.We are becoming too much of a society where we cannot say what we think and feel is right.

One can't help to think that this political decision comes largely from jealousy. One man whose program is watched by more than the Insiders and whose blog attracts huge number of contributors has the left squirming in jealousy. Many on OLO even hate him largely because his views reasonate so much with those who refuse to have faith in the 'íntellectual' elite. He has exposed the hypocrisy of the gw warming scam, the aboriginal industry, the totally hypocritcal failed Gillard immigration debacle and the idiotic nature of the carbon tax. His opponents hate him with a passion because he reasonates with those who believe in common sense which is something sadly lacking from the left. The decision will make him more popular as the ridiculous nature of this foolish law is exposed.

Amicus, The point is not that Bolt (or anyone else) is challenging something or someone or some group. The point is that he bases many of his challenges on lies and untruths.

When will someone who supports Bolt actually agree that he got his facts wrong and when will Bolt and his lawyers explain why he did not challenge the plaintiffs' heritage in court?

The absence of any explanation is that he wants to say anything about anyone. So in his eyes, it would be ok for me to write that his mother was a prostitute and his father a paedophile and he never went to school and cannot write; but he is far too intelligent to declare untruths and drivel and therefore someone else writes his columns for him and he doesn't know any better - clearly wrong, but that is what he is wanting me to be able to say and write about him or anyone else.

I also hope the plaintiffs sue him for defamation.

No, I'm not a shareholder in NewsCorp, but the cost of Bolt's lies has an impact on the company's revenues... so why does NewsCorp encourage him to write lies? Unless the editor of the Herald-Sun is too afraid of Bolt.

I have to agree with the gist of Graham Young's assessment bar the usual Left-bashing/chattering classes commentary of which he like most RW commentators seems unable to refrain from among some otherwise good arguments. I wonder when the Right 'chatters' what they call it - probably networking or spreading the word or faith. Who knows.

The outcome of this case is surprising and will likely be overturned on appeal. Bolt's article does not breach the RD Act and I would not classify his comments as villification.

There is certainly a good case for defamation by the plaintiffs in relation to personal accusations.

The Courts are not a place for oversighting sloppy journalism otherwise media outlets would never be out of the Courts.
Welfare distribution is tied into disadvantage where there is inbuilt prejudices towards a group of people based on their ethnicity or colour of skin etc, whether in the process of seeking work, accessing education and expectations of respect. Bolt was basically arguing, albeit sarcastically, that the plaintiffs were not disadvantaged in the same way as full-blood aborigines. This does not in itself constitute a breach of the RDA.

There should always be freedom to discuss issues around welfare distribution and what constitutes 'disadvantage'. There have been aboriginals saying similar things, one should not conclude that Indigenous Australians are a homogenous group.

I would expect most rational people to understand ethnicity is not defined by physical appearance but to bloodlines, but this decision goes too far in setting a precedent for some honest discussion around race, ethnicity and welfare.

Bolt is a Dolt. Of that there is no doubt, his interviewing style is the most biased I've seen on Australian television, he interrupts his guests if they are not saying what he expects them to say and he leads his 'witnesses'.

While it must lead some to temptation, it is not appropriate IMO to agree with this decision just because Bolt is a Dolt or as a backlash against declining standards in journalism. We can best do that by not buying the offending newspapers or turning off the TV.

Great post Pelican

Have a question for you, does this ruling limit "free speech"?

I don't see that it has. There has been no change at all to what passes for free speech in Australia, noting that we do not have a constitutional right as is set down in USA legislation.

" Freedom of Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116)...

... In 1942 a Constitutional Convention held in Canberra recommended that the Constitution be amended to include a new section 116A preventing the Commonwealth or a State passing laws which curtailed freedom of speech or of the press.(9) The government did not accept this proposal and it was not included in the referendum on 19 August 1944, when other constitutional amendments were proposed.

The advantage of having such rights written into the Constitution is that they are 'entrenched' and cannot be amended or removed by any government without the overwhelming approval of the people voting at a referendum to amend the Constitution.(10) Rights contained in other legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, are not entrenched. They may be amended or repealed by any government with the consent of Parliament. "

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm

I posit GY's OLO has nothing to fear from Eatock V Bolt. Although I do know that OLO posters have been silenced through GY's rules about disagreeing with the moderator; as is his right of course. Just making the point that none of us are truly free; in the purest sense of the word.

Hi Ammonite
I cannot comment yet on whether this ruling might inhibit free speech or whether the ruling will set a too broad precedent for similar cases.

The ruling may possibly inhibit some journalists or social commentators who might perceive the ruling as a new line drawn in the sand that they may not be willing to cross. There is a huge abyss between sloppy journalism and breaches of the RDA and that is where I have a problem. In many ways the ruling may do more harm to the objectives of the RDA.

I am not sure I buy into the whole damaging to free speech argument this ruling has invoked. Much of it is the expected RW reaction but there is an element of truth in among the bluster albeit overplayed.

There is a difference between villification and what Bolt has written IMO, and I would hate to see the freedoms we take for granted diminished in any way. There is always a battle going on legislatively speaking between freedom of speech and what constitutes hate speech or villification.

My own feeling is that Bolt was not engaging in 'hate speech' in this case and it does raise some concern about the 'line'. He is guilty of sloppy journalism and making personal accusations that he has neither backed up with evidence or with interviewing the people concerned. But that is an entirely different area of law.

My thoughts come from looking at this issue purely from the legal implications (from my layman's POV), putting aside political ideology or personal feelings about Bolt.