Not sure that answers the question though, Cohenite.

Do published articles intended to offend and upset which achieve this with extensive embedded falsehoods – about 20 extracted above - require remedy? If so, what is appropriate?

And on your claim "Bolt was convicted of doing the very thing the litigants do" may I ask you again? Have you actually read the judgment through, Cohenite - or just commentary on it from Murdoch apologists?

Hello, Alan Austin, you seem to be implying that what constitutes an "aboriginal" is legally defined. OK Alan. Enlighten me.

On second thought, Alan, let me guess.

"Anyone who has the merest trace of aboriginal ancestry, and who considers themselves "aboriginal" is legally an "aboriginal", and they entitled to help themselves to all generous taxpayer funds meant to alleviate aboriginal disadvantage."

Hi again LEGO,
The legal definition has an intriguing history discussed here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01rn18.htm

But since the 1970s pretty much everyone has accepted this:

"An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives."

This three-part definition (descent, self-identification and community recognition) was adopted in the 1980s by federal and state government departments as their working definition for determining eligibility for services and benefits. It is accepted by the High Court as defining 'Aboriginal race' in s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution.

It was used by the Federal Court in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991. Then Justice Brennan confirmed it in the 1992 Mabo judgement, with slight rewording:

"Membership of the indigenous people depends on biological descent from the indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people."

"Murdoch apologists"; what an honest broker you are.

I read law cases for a living.

This is a bad one; it stretches the law.

Let me ask you; do you think if a description of an aborigine of discernible biological descent, but who had no discernible physical characteristics of aboriginality and a non-aboriginal cultural upbringing and who had received benefits based on aboriginality would be acceptible under this Judgement if that description contained no errors of fact? And as a corrollary, would such a description containing no errors of fact as defined in the Judgement, be possible?

Bolt simply asked a question which I have heard many people ask, and I think it is a legitimate question. Maybe he should not have named any specific person though and that may have been his undoing.

The findings of the court are flying in the face of public opinion on this.
A law that can shut up a perfectly legitimate question being asked by a huge percentage of Australians is just plainly politically correct nonsense.