Alan Austin, you continue to show that you are not an honest participant in this debate when you preface your comment with the claim I have not read Bromberg's Judgement; not only have I read it, I have understood it; you haven't understood it or if you have you will not concede it's discriminatory nature and its oppressive effect especially when combined with the ramifications of the Finkelstein report.

In short you strike me as the sort of person who regards freedom of expression as a right for only those who agree with you.

In addition, you continue to peddle this spurious nonsense that Bromberg's Judgeement was based on the factual errors of Bolt's articles. This issue and your erroneous interpretation of it was dealt with at this post in the comments:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13157&page=6

On pages 5 and 6 of the above post the issue of whether the Bolt Judgement was sustained by errors of fact was discussed. Those errors were listed by Bromberg at paragraphs 394-399 in the context of what he considered to be the 2 defining issues of aboriginality: biological descent and cultural factors, that is upbringing.

All the so-called errors of fact by Bolt were about these 2 issues. As I said when Bolt refered to the non-aboriginal upbringing of many of the litigants, this was an error of fact by ommission because Bolt concentrated on the non-aboriginal aspect of the upbringing and did not refer any of the aboriginal upbringing.

This error of ommission by Bolt is where the bulk of the "false assertions" relied on by Bromberg lay and may be regarded as just ONE example of an error of fact.

The irony of this error by Bolt is that in bringing their action against Bolt the litigants did the same thing; that is, focused entirely on their aboriginal cultural experience and ignored completely the non-aboriginal. The irony was complete when they sought redress in non-aboriginal fashion.

Bromberg's Judgement was inherently contradictory; S18C is bad law; it should be repeale

@J Dawson: Re: “I disagree with your assertion that wholesale untruths were the basis of his judgment.”

Did you read the ‘good faith’ section, JD? The defence failed precisely because of wholesale untruths.

Specifically, “The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides. For those reasons I am positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith.”

Had there been no Murdoch Made Up Sh!t, there would have been no adverse judgment. Simple as that.

Did you read the link Cohenite provided above? A good example of the same basic opinion being expressed. But without all the lies. That guy is home free. As he should be.

Re: “If that had been the plaintifs case why did they not charge Bolt with defamation?”

I don’t know. I don’t know anyone who knows for sure. Possibly to get it on the record formally that Bolt is a racist and his employers have paid for racist material to be published.

That won’t cut any ice with most Herald Sun readers, but may have an impact in some quarters.

Re: “Most of the alleged inaccuracies were opinions deemed to infer inaccurate perceptions.”

Totally false, JD.

Re: “… inaccuracies, alleged or real, can't be vetted and implications can't be examined.”

Of course they can. The judge highlighted 20 specific lies or omissions in clear detail.

Have you read the judgment with a view to hearing what the judge actually found, JD? Or just skimmed it to find what you wish was there?

@Cohenite: Re, “… you continue to peddle this spurious nonsense that Bromberg's Judgeement was based on the factual errors of Bolt's articles.”

No, it is not spurious, and not nonsense. See above. Read paragraphs 351 through to the end, Cohenite. But please try to read what the judge actually said – not what Murdoch’s liars and manipulators want you to think he said.

AA: As I said: “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'.

The judgement was that Bolt made statements that were "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate". He could have been let off that judgement, on grounds of “good faith”, but the judge decided that no such excuse applied to Bolt, and it was there that the alleged inaccuracies were used to prop up that secondary judgement.

But that was not the essence of the conviction, just a peripheral issue of whether Bolt had an excuse. If there had not been the judgement that the statements offended the plaintiffs, the alleged inaccuracies wouldn’t have come into it. Not unless he was charged with defamation, which he wasn’t, because the plaintiffs knew they couldn’t make that charge stick.

As for your opportunistic slur that “Bolt is a racist”, that is a lousy lie that you can make with impunity, while Bolt is restrained from responding. Bolt has consistently argued for equal treatment for all Australians before the law, which is the antithesis of racism. What is racist is that cowardly accusations like yours can be made against members of some races while discerning criticisms of other races are taboo - much to the detriment of the latter.

Yes I have read the link Cohenite provided. It’s not an example of “the same basic opinion being expressed. But without all the lies.” It’s an example of the fact that this act is couched in such vague and subjective terms that it can be applied to some Australians and not to others – Many Aborigines say what Bolt said in much less discerning terms, but they will never be convicted under the act (nor will you for your disgusting lie). Which is just one of the reasons the RDA must be repealed.

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

Would you mind being specific and list "at least" the 20 lies you claim.

Further to what J Dawson has posted and in an effort to put AA's misrepresentation of the ratio decidendi of the Bromberg Judgement in plain terms.

The errors of fact, as I noted, were just one; Bolt's focus on the litigants' 'white' background and ignoring their aboriginal background.

This would not have grounded an action in Defamation because it was factually true; each of the litigants had, in varying degree, a 'white' background and upbringing. Bolt's point was that 'white' background along with the 'white' appearance of the litigants meant that what he said had a defence of truth.

Bolt's other point that persons of 'white' upbringing and 'white' appearance were claiming benefits to which they were not entitled to and which had been designed to be available for a class of persons not 'white' and of aboriginal upbringing; that point then becomes defendable to a claim of Defamation because it is honest opinion.

Bromberg's reliance on errors of fact makes his Judgement a legal fiction because there were none that are sustainable outside the umbrella of S18C.

You may argue that that is the purpose of that section of the RDA but do not pretend that it is a legal right to do with being the victim of factual errors. It is a section which is completely different from fact based rights and objective standards of proof; it is based on a subjective, feeling based right which cannot establish any precedent or continuity because what the standard of right to litigation becomes is the subjective feelings of any person or group; that is the only fact which is required.

Hi again JD and Cohenite,

Looks like we are at an impasse. I read statements like these and hear Bromberg saying the multiple lies mattered:

"The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth …"

"Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."

"Expressions made on the basis of untrue or distorted facts or without due care to avoid distortions of the truth are not likely to involve a conscientious approach to the task of honouring the values asserted by the RDA.”

“The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified …”

And so on.

JD, you read the same passages and say the lies were peripheral. Hmmm …

You claim “Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism.” Hmmm …

You say the RDA must be repealed. Hmmm …

How do we resolve this? We could ask Bromberg himself.

No wait. I’ve another idea. Maybe we could ask the Associate who heard all the evidence and watched the judge at work. Hey, why not?

“Mr. Bolt's shoddy journalism, however, is an unlikely candidate, on its merits, to give rise to a reconsideration of part IIA of the RDA.

“We would encourage Mr. Abbott and anyone else ... to carefully read Justice Bromberg's lengthy reasons.

“The lesson that is ripe to be drawn from the facts of this litigation is, we suggest, not that section 18C should be repealed but, rather, that Mr. Bolt should go back to journalism school.”

Yes! I’m sure I read that somewhere. Did you?

Finally for now, Cohenite, no there was not just the one factual error. Much as Murdoch’s mendacious minions might want you to think that.

Bromberg highlighted more than 20 - in just two articles.

The racism finding? Not me. That was in the judgment too. Please read it carefully, Cohenite. And then read the Herald Sun’s corrective statement.

Cheers, AA