"This impoverishes the nation quite significantly."

What impoverises this country is condescending and blinkered attitudes like yours.

The judgement against Bolt was terrible for multiple reasons; the mantra was that the applicants to that woeful bit of legislation, The Racial Discrimination Act, would have succeeded in defamation but did not pursue that path because they were not interested in money.

This is patently wrong; Bromberg J's decision rested entirely on the criteria that offence under the RDA was based on the subjective feelings of the applicant; in defamation the criteria is the community standard, the antithesis of subjectivity. It is also the case that defamation matters still retain the right to a jury, despite attempts by the usual left to muzzle that last bit of community standard [see Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (2011) NSWCA 246 at [15]].

I find it absurd to think a reasonably selected jury would have convicted Bolt on the facts of his case.

And how is describing Islam as an aggressive, intolerant religion a stereotype?

Hi Cohenite,
Did you actually read the Bolt judgment?
It is quite long, but well worth the effort.

Hi Alan Austin.
It is manifestly obvious that Cohenite has not read the Bolt judgment or if he did he did not understand it. But then, why let facts get in the way of one's prejudices.

"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective assessment of the likely reaction of those people. I have concluded that the assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people. General community standards are relevant but only to an extent."

Paragraph 15:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html

Impress me with your legal acumen and explain how that is not a subjective, non-community standard.

Dear oh dear the extreme rightwingers and the extreme religous fundamentalist, seem to have forgotten that Australia went into WW2 to destroy this extreme control and totaliterianism ideology.
EG: Runner your Jesus and his Mother or Dad would not be happy with you, showing hatred towards their children!!

The judge also said:
"The reasons for that conclusion [that offensive conduct occurred] have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.
"In coming to that view, I have taken into account the possible degree of harm that I regard the conduct involved may have caused. Beyond the hurt and insult involved, I have also found that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity.
"I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some people susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views and that, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened."
The judge found 20 errors of fact. In just two articles.
“Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance,” he observed.