'Section 18Cis only triggered if ...[it] is "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate …because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin" '

Why only because of race or origin? Why not ban giving offence because of: religion, class, sexual orientation, political allegiance, occupation, body shape, age, dress, smell, accent, education, marriage status, football club? What's the difference?

"People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying."

Should they likewise be free to identify with their political party or football club without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying?

"Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance."

Isn't disparagement directed at the legitimacy of political or football identification just as likely to be destructive of political or club tolerance? Isn't disparagement by definition destructive of tolerance? If I disparage Liberals, Collingwood supporters, Nazis, and jaywalkers, isn't that destructive of tolerance of them?

So let's be clear about this act. It bans disparaging speech that gives offence. The fact that it is applies only to disparagement by certain people of certain people for certain reasons just adds discrimination to its despotic injustice.

Why do I get the feeling most posters here haven’t read the judgment?

Okay. Hands up if you haven't.

Hmmm. A lot of hands.

@Cohenite: Re, “How can it be that a black writer, who identifies as indigenous, can make the same points as Bolt, that is, some people who identify as being aboriginal but who are white may do so for benefit ... without restraint.”

You would know the answer, Cohenite, had you read the judgment.

Bolt was found guilty because his articles were filled with “assertions [that] were erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous,” statements that are “untrue”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous” and inferences which “leave an erroneous impression”.

Statements like this pervade the judgment: “The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.”

In lay language, Bolt wrote a pack of lies. Bromberg identified at least 20. In two articles. That’s why he lost.

The blogsite you linked contained no such wholesale fabrication of allegations, did it?

The judge made it clear that opinions may be freely expressed in Australia. Any opinion whatsoever. But we are not allowed to concoct damaging, insulting or defamatory “factual assertions” about other people which are plainly false.

The “defects of Bolt's articles”, Cohenite, are that they were all Murdoch Made Up Sh!t. Please read the judgment.

@DavidL: “Also free speech (absent defamation) does not require the truth. Free means free, truth or not.”

But the Bolt article were not "absent defamation", were they, DavidL? They were absent truth. Have you read the findings?

@J Dawson: Re, "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'."

Completely false. The judge specifically said "“Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance".

The wholesale fabrications were absolutely central to the judge's findings. Please read the judgment, J Dawson. Especially the discussion of 'good faith'. It is not too late.

Cheers, AA

Mr Coyne’s cloying appraisal of Justice Bromberg’s decision borders embarrassment, particularly when noting, “He had an incredibly interesting year as Associate to the Hon. Justice Bromberg…” Apparently, an apple for the teacher still works, metaphorically at least.
18c serves only those who wish to punish what the majority consider, reasonable opinion.
Section 13, similar to our 18c, has been removed from the Canadian Bill C-304 just recently. While the noose of control continues to strangle in Australia, Canada is shaking free from the stultifying shackles of political correctness. However,I hardly expect Maitres Keim and Coyne to countenance that thinking in the slightest.
I submit that were the authors to review their handiwork the true meaning of hate might be revealed—to an ordinary person, off course.

This Stalinesque “Truth” commission is evil and so too are those who support it, iff comment is not free then it is corrupt, strictly Newspeak stuff.
That there are pale grifters is beyond doubt, if it can be, it will be. Ivy League Profs have been found to be liars in the US, high cheek bones was the comment but it got her the goodies. About the last NT election to have legal threats against Bess Price, a true Aboriginal by some pale lawyer only proves the Bolt case

AA. I read the judges summary soon after it was made, and have just skimmed it again, and I disagree with your assertion that wholesale untruths were the basis of his judgment. If that had been the plaintifs case why did they not charge Bolt with defamation?

This was the judges "FINDINGS OF CONTRAVENTION AND RELIEF
For the reasons I have given I am satisfied that:
Some Aboriginal persons of mixed descent who have a fairer, rather than darker skin, and who by combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as Aboriginal persons were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the Newspaper Articles that:
.1 There are fair-skinned people in Australia with essentially European ancestry but with some Aboriginal descent, of which the identified individuals are examples, who are not genuinely Aboriginal persons but who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal; and
.2 Fair skin colour indicates a person who is not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identifying as an Aboriginal person"

Followed by the judgement that Bolt was not exempted due to good faith or public interest within the terms of the act.

So the heart of the judgement was the alleged offensiveness of Bolt's comments, not any alleged inaccuracies.

Most of the alleged inaccuracies were opinions deemed to infer inaccurate perceptions. But the judgement just drives the issues involved underground so that inaccuracies, alleged or real, can't be vetted and implications can't be examined. Bolt haters are able to defame him to their hearts content on this issue, knowing he is constrained by law from responding. Even if any of their criticisms are valid, Bolt lovers will be suspicious that he is being unfairly slandered due to the restraints on his ability to answer. Such is one of the insidious effects of censorship.

Marcia Langton wrote a very interesting article pertinent to this discussion in the Oz on 31 August.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/get-rid-of-race-to-stop-racism/story-e6frgd0x-1226461968870

And there was a very depressing Insight program on SBS a few weeks ago about aboriginality - the local committees which assess and determine whether or not an applicant is acknowledged to be aboriginal (apparently for the purpose of getting access to various resources and programs) came across as something out of apartheid South Africa. Everyone taking part in the program would have known their own identity, but we have set up a bizarre system where this has to be endorsed by petty officialdom.