AA, give the Murdoch press a rest; and the explicit insult that anyone who disagrees with you about Bromberg's Judgement must be a victim of Murdoch propoganda and unable to think for themselves; a typical left/green technique in debate.

Anyway, you have not addressed the fact that this guy, a 'black' aboriginal, says the same as Bolt, and isn't being harangued to court by the hurt feelings of some, as he calls them, "Fauxborigines":

http://theblacksteamtrain.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/conflict-of-interest-only-for-whites.html

And Bolt made one error of fact, not presenting the aboriginal upbringing of the litigants, not the number you claim, all of which are variations of that.

Hello again Belfast.

Thank you for responding.

Not sure why your proclaim your profession. How is that relevant?

I have just been researching the Watergate investigation – 40 years ago this year – comparing integrity of journalists then and now. Many of those jailed in the Watergate scandals were lawyers by profession. Did you know that?

Re Elizabeth Warren, I have no idea. But, again, how is that relevent here?

If you had researched the Eatock v Bolt matter you would know that Bolt was skewered for being a racist, as evidenced by the multiple lies he concocted about the racial minority he chose to vilify.

About 20 of the fabrications the judge identified are listed above. In just two articles. There may be more. Impressive, huh?

Hello again Raycom.

Re: “Alan Austin's apparent intense hate of the Murdoch press prompts the question: is he a disciple of ex-Greens leader, Bob Brown?”

Excellent question, Raycom.

I live in Europe now where memories continue of terrible, terrible evils which started with journalists or academics or politicians just writing one or two lies about racial minorities, then more and more, then others joining the chorus - until whole nations were seething with hatred against minorities.

But, really, for no sound reason. All the ‘beliefs’ were lies.

Bob Brown seems to be one of a small number of prominent Australians who has stood against powerful organisations printing blatant lies about minorities - like the criminal Murdoch empire – which has been shown recently in Britain to lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate, pay corrupt police, pay corrupt politicians, interfere with murder investigations and commit perjury in court and in parliamentary inquiries.

Are you accusing me of supporting Bob Brown in opposing the evils of the Murdoch criminal organisation? Hmmm. Gosh. Maybe I should be ashamed of myself.

But the question is, Raycom, and Belfast: Whose side are you on?

Cheers, AA

Hello again Cohenite,

Pretty sure I did “address the fact that this guy, a 'black' aboriginal, says the same as Bolt, and isn't being harangued to court by the hurt feelings of some, as he calls them, ‘Fauxborigines’”

I addressed it twice, in fact. Maybe your eyes glazed over, as when you read the sections of the Bromberg judgment which contradict your preconceptions.

This is what I wrote – Tuesday, 4 September 2012 4:01:54 PM:

(start quote)
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.
(end quote)

Later, when talking to J Dawson (Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:30:47 PM) I wrote:

“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: “And Bolt made one error of fact, not presenting the aboriginal upbringing of the litigants, not the number you claim, all of which are variations of that.”

Totally, utterly and embarrassingly false, Cohenite. Have you no shame? Please go through the itemised list, above. Or, better still, read the judgment properly.

Cheers, AA

AA, you may have replied to my assertion that the link to the aboriginal blog shows a commentator doing exactly what Bolt did but you have not "addressed" the contradiction shown by 'Blacksteamtrain'.

That contradiction is: Bolt gets prosecuted, not sued, under the RDA for saying aboriginals of white appearance do not need government assistance designed for black aboriginals, while nothing happens to 'Blacksteamtrain' when he calls white aboriginals frauds for doing the same thing Bolt complains they do.

Please explain the difference between what Bolt asserted and what 'Blacksteamtrain' is asserting; and if there is no difference why 'Blacksteamtrain' is not being similarly prosecuted.

A note on the difference between being sued and prosecuted; being sued is a private matter such as if the litigants in the Bolt case tried to sue him in Defamation, in which such action they would have failed; being prosecuted is when a government body brings action against a citizen for an alleged contravention of a regulation such as S18C of the RDA.

In respect of AA's increasingly strident comments about the almost infinite number of factual errors made by Bolt, as opposed to my contention that there was only one basic error [and I disagree that it was an error but a legitimate comment about a legitimate issue], I would ask AA to name one of Bolt's many errors which is not to do with the upbringing of the litigants.

Alan Austin hasn't explained why the laws on defamation aren't enough to protect individuals or groups who are the victims of malicious lies. We wouldn't even be discussing this if those "pale-skinned Aboriginals" had simply sued Bolt for defamation. Why do people also need to be prosecuted by the State unless there is incitement to violence or the like?

As quoted in my previous post from a law journal article, to which I linked, one of the appeal judges in the Catch the Fire case in Victoria, not me, said that being truthful and balanced was no defence under the Victorian Religious Vilification Act. Why has the question of truth been left out if there is no intention to silence people? This case is not irrelevant because the Racial Discrimination Act appears to use very similar language to the Victorian Act. As I understand it, there hasn't been a similar case under the Racial Discrimination Act - yet.

AA. I declare you the undisputed winner of this debate. There is nothing like fashioning matter to suit your cause. You may now sit on the right hand of your mentor, the good Justice Bromberg who did it so well.