Truth is a defence in defamation, but this wasn't a defamation case.

Also free speech (absent defamation) does not require the truth. Free means free, truth or not.

...Abbotts' target audience are those of the “tabloid” culture of course. Labor have yet to realise the significance of this; and while Labor continue to side with the anti-tabloid set, by pandering to the “deep and meaningful” of lifes’ political questions and answers, Abbott is under the “bar” and racking-up the points, by siding with Bolts’ version of life, the collection of “downward-envy glee-club” of non-thinking tabloiders! (And the Australian newspaper? Well isn’t that where the “tabloiders” go on weekend excursion)?

Diver Dan - Does Labor really address life's deep and meaningful political questions while Abbott panders to the 'tabloid' set? I think not. Your answer reflects the intellectual and moral superiority the Left deems itself to have. A real "deep and meaningful" analysis of this issue reveals numerous points of contention. Would they pursue and celebrate prosecution of similar harrassment towards Christians? I think not. The Leftist view that they are continually frustrated in exercising their righteousness by base minded conservatives is one of their continuing delusions. It is caused by their inability to countenance any view other their own.

The celebration of the outcome of the Bolt case is as much about the Left feeling justified in pursuing its version of a 'social justice' agenda as much as anything else. Of course, there can be no social justice when laws are not equally applied across all groups. The 'tabloid set' as you disparagingly call them are equally able to ascertain the rights and wrongs of the case as any Labor Party ideologue.

I agree that Mr Abbott misread the evidence? However that should come as no surprise, given the way Mr Abbott continues to seem to misrepresent the evidence?
Take offshore processing and the boats he claims he would turn back?
When the Gillard govt got in and stepped up to the plate, the very first thing they tried to do was set up a regional processing centre in East Timor.
Bagged relentlessly by Mr Abbott and co?
A request that was refused.
Now they want to send us 2,000 seasonal workers? Perhaps we could now get them to agree to reciprocation, and a regional processing centre, given the sheer number of relatively well paid, stable stay at home jobs and economic activity it would surely produce?
Gillard then negotiated a regional processing centre in Malaysia. Abbott and co continued to block/refuse to pass the very legislation that would allow that plan to progress, citing a lack of UNCHR as their reason?
Even though their preferred Asylum seeker centre, Nauru, processed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of refugees; for the Howard govt, even though it was never ever a signatory, at any time during the Howard reign!
Even as Mr Abbott continued to block a progressive regional solution to the Asylum seeker problem, even as the number drowning rose and rose and rose.
He continued to, I believe, misrepresent the facts and blame Labour for the lack of any solution and the loss of human life; and or, the fact that a criminal cartel were effectively deciding our resettlement program?
We shouldn't judge Mr Abbott on his words alone or self evident blame shifting; but rather by his actions?
Actions which include, climate change denial, being party to the introduction of work-choices, the wind back of both education and health spending?
Billions rerouted basically to be able to afford to roll out the pork barrel; middle class welfare or, give tax breaks to billionaires and advantage already very wealthy privatised education?
Rhrosty.

Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism, the judgement's reference to inaccuracies was entirely peripheral; they were mentioned only to prop up the judges subjective decision that Bolt wasn't to be excused on the grounds of 'good faith'.

If the (few entirely insignificant) inaccuracies were the issue Bolt would have been charged with slander, but he wasn't because the plaintifs knew that Bolt could easily defend himself against such a charge. But how can anyone defend themselves against a charge that someone was offended by your comments, reasonably or otherwise?

There is obviously no need of a right to say things that don't upset anybody, the right of free speech is precisely the right to say things that are going to offend someone. And the act that was used to shut Bolt up is a disgraceful and dangerous violation of that fundamental right.

It is clear even to a lay man in these matters that Keim and Coyne together with the writers of the act mean well. Unfortunately, as is well known the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The act is both arbitrary in selection of instances and capricious in its interpretation.

Individuals A, B or C may make similar observations to Mr Bolt, yet only Mr Bolt is subject of complaint by the Eatock group. Incidentally a highly articulate and well educated group of individuals –not a bunch of shrinking violets- who according to remarks reported outside the court were motivated by the desire to silence Mr Bolt. In this they have been successful.

Now suppose a hundred or a thousand individuals chose to make the similar critical or adverse remarks towards a specific group. Which one, if any will be the subject of complaint? Does the Act allow a sort of class action?

Then we consider the subjectivity and latitude given to the judge in determining the meaning of “insult, humiliate or intimidate because of race.” I doubt if the Eatock group were really intimidated. I also wonder if a Jury would be of the same opinion as the Hon. Justice.

I do not believe anybody would claim that this was Mr Bolt’s finest journalistic exercise; but is this really a sufficient foundation for a sweeping condemnation of “shoddy journalism.” Surely, the authors are not making the claim that all or most of Mr Bolt’s articles are shoddy?