Christopher Hitchens was horrified to learn Mother Teresa espoused suffering - suffering in death and suffering poverty.

Dr Mangalwadi emphasises that - "Jesus suffered so much. We must share in his sufferings."

It wasn't "the amazing grace displayed by the Sisters of Charity [that] liberated Hitchens to pursue his journalism", it was his realisation that M. Teresa espoused and fostered suffering.

Runner,

That is an interpretation introduced by the church to justify it's own atrocities such as the Spanish inquisition etc. It this sort of misinterpretation that sees Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. Most Muslims see such actions as abhorrent, just as most thinking Christians would see your interpretation as abhorrent.

Jesus was pointing out the injustice of the event.

Similarly, he was speaking out against racism on the story of the good Samaritan.

Yet here you are, trying to protect the right of people to racially insult people

TrashcanMan wrote:

>>Yet here you are, trying to protect the right of people to racially insult people>>

As one who has been "racially insulted" - repeatedly on this forum as it happens - I defend the right of people to "racially insult" me. (Pardon the split infinitive).

With all due respect Steven, I believe that is a personal choice of yours. You know you can tolerate that sort of abuse, and so can I.

But I do find it difficult to defend the 'right' of people to abuse anyone they like, whether that abuse is directed to race or sexual orientation or whatever.

Likewise, while I really do believe in freedom of speech, I will NOT defend the likes of Bolt. That would make me physically ill.

I won't attack him, but I sure as hell won't defend him either.

Bugsy wrote:

>>Likewise, while I really do believe in freedom of speech, I will NOT defend the likes of Bolt. That would make me physically ill.>>

You do not have to defend him. You merely have to defend his right to express his views which are BTW inseparable from your right to express your views.

What makes this case so obnoxious is that I would have thought the Eatock 9 had a good case under the ordinary law of libel. Bolt's comments amount to an accusation of fraud. Why bring the racial element into it at all?

The only reason I can think that they did not go the libel route is that they feared they would not be able to make their case. Now why do you think that is Bugsy?

It is easy to defend the right of someone to say things you find unobjectionable. If you really believe in free speech you need to be prepared to defend the right of people to say things you consider vile.

I am no fan of Bolt's. But if he is silenced will I be next? Will you?

To quote Niemoller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Steve, I agree. I don't think this was a case of racial discrimination. Clearly, based on the judgement, it would have succeeded as a defamation case, which makes more sense in my mind. However Andrew Bolt does, it can't be denied, write some pretty racially inflammatory stuff on a regular basis, so the suit still fits (pardon the pun)

Where I disagree is that freedom of speech should entitle anyone, let alone the mainstream media, to racially vilify or racially abuse others without repercussion.

It's illegal to physically bash someone for obvious reasons, it causes harm.

However, emotional or psychological abuse, denigration etc can cause much more harm, long term, than can a few punches to the head. Especially for young people growing up and trying to fit in.

The effect of such vilification is even more pronounced when it comes from the mainstream media, of which Andrew Bolt is a prominent representative in Melbourne. How can kids feel good about themselves when the TV and newspapers are saying bad things about them and their families?

The plaintiffs took the course they did to make a point about the like of Andrew Bolt; they could have made some good coin had they gone down the defamation road.

The problem with your quote from Niemoller, in my opinion, is that Bolt, Alan Jones etc speak for "them", not the communist, the unionist, the jew or even you.