Andrew Bolt has been found in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. You can read the judgement here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html.

You can also read some commentary on it from journalist Andrew Dodd here http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3026182.html.

In essence the judgement says that if you make judgements on someone based on their race and they are reasonably likely to be offended by it then you have committed racial discrimination, and that the exemption provided on the grounds of fair comment doesn't apply if you have expressed yourself strongly.

We have had conversations here over the years on matters covered by the act and I have always assumed we would be covered by the fair comment provision (Section 18D).

Afterall, what is the use of free speech if you can't offend someone? And OLO operates as a forum where people can discuss ideas, no matter what their background is, or how well or otherwise they express themselves.

It now appears that I will have to make a judgement call on the tone of any comments on racial matters, in which case it is easier not to discuss them.

Most chillingly the judge says in the summary "I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some people susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views and that, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened."

Yes, and they may have formed the basis of a discussion in which some people so inclined may have changed their minds. Now they will be careful to have these discussions where their views cannot be challenged.

It most certainly is a worry, Graham.

At a personal level, I dislike Andrew Bolt's style immensely. I see him as a grumpy, unreconstructed 1950s white-bread conservative, with the value set that goes with it.

But I believe that he has an absolute right to bring to the public's attention issues where he feels that the subject of an individual's race is being used in an inappropriate manner. While his approach is to sneer and belittle - and I think it is this that got him into trouble equally as much as the racial content - we are all entitled to know how our taxes are being spent.

So as well as fearing in a general sense for the future of free speech in this country - and is has definitely been dealt a significant blow - I think the judgment itself is flawed in its conclusions as to the incidents themselves.

What I also find unpleasant is the thought of all those wads of cash that are going to flow into the gleeful pockets of those hyenas, "human rights lawyers". To paraphrase Alessio Rastani, that iconic financial trader in his BBC interview the other day...

"Personally I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I have a confession, which is I go to bed every night, I dream of another Andrew Bolt."

Graham,

This is, with respect to the learned judges, a ridiculous decision and I'm sure that Bolt will appeal it. Many times, amongst Indigenous students and other community members, I have heard reference to various people as 'Johnny-come-latelys', 'coming out of the woodwork' and so on, in reference to someone claiming to be Indigenous and going for a benefit or job of some sort. A fair proportion of the Indigenous population would have to be charged, and found guilty, along with Bolt if this decision stands.

When I was working in Indigenous university student support, a major focus was on recruitment and preparation, and on a few occasions, not all that many, I would get enquiries from people claiming to be Indigenous:

* 'my grandmother was part-Aboriginal' [what, do you mean your mother or your father ?]

* 'my great-grandfather was Aboriginal' [not 'native'? as many white Australians called themselves assertively in the late nineteenth century: viz. the 'Australian Natives' Association'] [and how many Aboriginal men married non-Aboriginal women in the nineteenth century ? Certainly it occurred, but my advice to a would-be 'Aboriginal' applicant would be to stick with 'great-grandmother'].

I well remember a guy who turned out to be Austrian-Italian. What tended to give the game away was applicants' inability to quickly spell out their family links - genuine Aboriginal applicants would be happy to tell you, and within seconds you would know who they were related to. Phonies tended to shuffle their feet, hum and ha, and go on about 'stolen generation', that their mother/father didn't know because of the SG etc. [So, if they didn't know their ancestry, why do/did they think they were Aboriginal ?] I used to give them family tree forms, and never saw them again.

So yes, there are phonies out there, and Aboriginal people know it, especially when, being good talkers, they often get some of the plum jobs.

[TBC]

[contd.]

I have no problem at all with benefits and concessions, such as easier access to university enrolment, to anybody, Black or White, on the basis of need, but I'm not so sure that an Aboriginal person whose parents are solidly middle-class and who discovers in adolescence that they 'are Aboriginal' needs any special deals - but I guess to him or her that hath, shall it be given.

And with more than twenty six thousand Indigenous graduates, nobody needs to coddle or pamper or sponsor (cf. Ralph Turner's 1961 paper on 'sponsored and contest mobility', a wonderfully uncanny description of skewed opportunities in inegalitarian systems for the mobility of some, at the expense of others) any tiny handful of Precious Aboriginal Exceptions. Non-Aboriginal academics who have acted as minders and coddlers, with the best of intentions, I'm sure, have done great disservice to the Aboriginal people as a whole by such preferencing.

And who is still going to be getting coddled and promoted and put on committees in 2020, when there are fifty thousand Indigenous university graduates ? Will it still be the same old circulating elites in Indigenous academe and Indigenous affairs ?

Joe

The sad part is that many aboriginals would agree with Andrew Bolts assessment.

Fair comment was ruled out because the articles were shown to be not in good faith and to contain factual errors, according to the judge.

No surprises there.

'because the articles were shown to be not in good faith and to contain factual errors,

and of course the black armed band historians who speak of the whites invading this land is recorded in good faith even know it is factually wrong. The activist judges who try and prevent free speach in this country always lose out as people see through their political/social agendas.

I dislike the man very much.
But think he is victim to PC.
Again I avoid him at all costs.
But think he was not alone in this view.
I have, quite often, questioned the statement, *if you are excepted as Aboriginal by them you are Aboriginal*I
PC in every way, is silencing free speech.
Putting minority's views first.
May I ask this? is it legal?
What of the other blood, the often two thirds so many have that is not Aboriginal.
My ancestry is Scot/Irish/Welsh/ English/ and a chance some thing else.
Should I be called Australian.
Take our country back from courts PC judges and greens in black frocks and white wigs.
OH and export Bolt.

Can we discuss matter of race any more on OLO?

Why on earth not?

It's a load of nonsense to suggest anything to the contrary.

The case of Andrew Bolt has nothing to do with OLO.
Or freedom of speech as the obnoxious man claims.

Lets get this straight.

The reasons for his finally getting his come- uppence (and rightly
so) has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever. The reasons
for the conclusion in his case and I quote the judge:

"Have to do with the manner in which the articles were written,
including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the
truth, and inflammatory and provocative language."
(What a surprise!)

The man thrives on fiction not fact. And to claim anything else
is putting it as politely as possible - "nonsense."

Perhaps this just might encourage journalists to clean up their
act and dare we hope that we just may get truth and honesty from
newspapers. Dare we hope that whether its opinion or not that in
future it will be based on fact, not fiction.

As far as Mr Bolt is concerned - I wouldn't hold my breath.
He wouldn't know the truth
if it was tatooed on his forehead.
And he will never recognise the fact the people who enjoy the
rights of free speech have a duty to respect other people's
rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights
of others. All societies, including
democratic ones, put various limitations on what people may say.

When you write articles that contain errors of fact, distortions
of the truth and inflammatory provocative language - you're
don't have much of a leg to stand on when you then claim to hide
behind "Freedom of speech." Mr Bolt does not deserve any sympathy
whatsoever. He did it all to himself and this time
he has to wear it.

cont'd ...

BTW: I've just exercised my freedom
of speech and I've based it on fact -
not fiction.

I am in total agreement Lexi. Alarmingly I have received a couple of racially vilifying emails from a person I've known for quite some whom seems to be encouraged by Andrew Bolt and people like him.

He, (my person I have known for a while) usually sends me humour from youtube etc, but in the last week has sent pro Israeli propaganda, combined with vilification of Muslims and Palestinians. Today he sent me anti Aboriginal humour of a kind that might have been funny to a racist 50 yrs ago.

My point about Bolt is that nearly all his commentary is vilifying and targeted. He is an un-principled apologist for the Liberal Party and therefore is also politically biased and effectively the furthest thing (with the possible exception of Piers Ackerman) from a real reporter.

Clearly it was about time that someone pulled the rug out from under this bloke and thankfully it was our law structures that did so because it shows that we , as a society, retain at least some civility.

Beyond that Tony Abbott's defence of Bolt today, is evidence that Abbott should never lead this country. Abbott has already forced the Gov't (through pure political populism), to attempt to change the powers of the Minister in relation to boat people.

He is now happy to see middle Australia feel resentment towards our own indigenous people again, as well as international refugees. This popular resentment has been promoted and encouraged by his team from the start, like some continuous "children overboard".

It is clear that a new political low has been reached in our country and it is high time that reason and balance be restored.

As for OLO and matters of race; as would be the case when anyone racially vilifies, or attempts to use race as a motivator for resentment, people such as myself will be active in discouraging it.

cont ..

cont ...

Mainly GrahamY because, resentment based on race is exactly the sort of thing that Hitler used to convince the German public of his value, prior to the 2nd World War, other tyrants since. This is why we have laws against such things. Value judgments based on race would have be one of the lowest apps available for the human mind.

"And as for the Melbourne Herald/Sun, there are many reasons for not buying it".
Despite the fact that actual reporting is sometimes absent from the entire paper, (even the horoscopes are the worst kind of commercial pap), Andrew Bolt remains the best one.

"Abbott has already forced the Gov't (through pure political populism), to attempt to change the powers of the Minister in relation to boat people."

Off topic but that's quite different to my understanding of events.

A legal challenge to the governments proposal to relocate boat people/asylum seekers/refugee's/illegal immigrants (pick your preferred term) to Malaysia. That challenge was successful and the government tried to get Abbott to cooperate with a change in the law to get around the courts decision basically by giving the minister additional powers.

Abbott has not cooperated with that plan. Whilst I have little belief that it was out of concern for the well being of the people involved I don't see how you can get out of that Abbott being to blame for an attempt to change the powers of the minister. That one's the governments doing.

Both major parties have played the political game with these people, the political populism is not just Abbott's doing.

R0bert

You can talk about race just dont be racist, bigoted, lie, demean and vilify people. Sadly par for the course for bolt and this forum.

any censorship is a worrying thing grayham..but more so is ignorance..we presumably are not exclusivly talking about race here..but also no doudt other issues such as religeon and sex..

but let fein[pretend]..this topic is purely about race,and not censoring creed or any other issue..we are all aborigonal..[from somewhere]..see the question is a trick question

personally..my root is the netherlands..
my ab/origonal race is from there..others are mixed race..in which case they assume their ab-origonality via their mothers Ab-origon

many have made issues of wetrher they are indigenous...and indeed many are..[see indigenouse means 'sans culture''..like a plant may be said to be indigenouse to this area..[but by being indigenous becuse it has no mindfull awareness of what or who it is..its called indigenous]

now many indigenie...might better be called ab-origonal..but if you dont know your roots..or dont know we al all ab/origonal from somewhere..even if your not recalling or knowing your culture..your still not a mindless plant..[still not indigenous]

because you still got the 'culture' of humanity

now andrew is ignorant
he dont know..he TOO..is ab/origonal
but we can guess he is origonal from somewhere

anyhow..whats the use..we have judges listening to opinion
and the bigger point is bolt got his facts wrong
thats where he stuffed up

also he has a massive readership
whereas we are lucky to have 20 or 30 readers...here

with andrew there is no right of reply..
no instant ability to correct..errors of fact

mate the case simply cant translate

ANYONE can write on these pages
to correct INSTANTLY..errors of fact..

if they dont
then we need to think..
what are they trying to hush up..!

of course we can disscuss..race..
[race is a provable lie]

im a euro..or a caucasion..or im a northern neanderthol..
with deficient pigmentation..[cast out of africa]

heck im not a nederlander
nor a brit..nor irish
im an ozzie

my kids have ozzie culture
just like me..so arnt indigenous
yet know they are ab=/origonal..from holland

a=alpha
b=beta
origonal

we are the beta from the alpha
we are all origonally from somwhere
if you know*..where..your an abo..[ab=origonally from]

if you dont..
its your choice to remain indigenous

heck mate..its on line OPINION
not on line FACT

no more censorship..or change the name
correct error..not ban opinion

heck is this russia
or germany or china or usa
no mate this is aussie..

[sticks and stones mate
how can words ever hurt me?..or hurt you?]

we all
can tell bile from opinion

The story and warning I am about to tell and give are true.
I will stand in any court before any judge and tell them.
I remain a product of my class,do not kid your self, class existed in my youth.
I as no older than 11 years of age under took to help others if possible.
As a proud union official, toward the end of my time in that job, about two years before, I took over and included the duty's with my own, of a less proud union official.
This included NSW government departments.
And special focus on Aboriginals.
I must underline my intention as that 11 years old remains a life support even now.
I found a dreadful situation, bought about by both white racism, HIDDEN by law but still there.
And open black racism.
Another day another thread I will expand.
But after a nightmare, a whole depot whites and Aboriginals being dreadfully treated, by a sexual minority in charge, exposed to great stress and things no workplace should see, minority's rule!
I young aboriginal woman put her trust in me.
She had sponsored a young man , her Friend at the time.
That meant getting the local land council to agree he was Aboriginal.
That all, he was not, she knew it, he got an internal job,set aside like dozens more for Aboriginals only.
He leads a crew of our first Australians, refuses all training about culture admits he has no ancestry , that he knowingly lied.
I despise BOLT he crafted his column as he does every thing.
He feeds on half truth and trouble.
Bolt is half Lady Ga Ga and half Tony Abbott, but as a proud ALP voter.
I REFUSE TO AVOID TRUTH TO WIN A FIGHT.

This story too is true.
I have been tossing and turning all night telling myself not to tell it.
At 2 am unable to sleep I nearly did.
You need first to understand the true poor of my generation did not have cash thrown at them.
Life was very hard.
Hunger too.
And that I tell this story as I have lived my life.
For my belief in Social activism.
My belief in the best in the ALP.
Bolt is a grub, he is a symptom of our hung Parliament.
He is every thing I am against 20 others too.
My fellow ALP travelers this leads me to ask we do not become the worst in Conservative media, that we not leave truth at the front door.
We must continue our great start under Rudd, doing good not bad honesty is our only tool.
40 years ago a young single mum learned from her Friends you got more help if you said you are Aboriginal.
She advised two sisters of this, one wed,took up the idea the other said no.
Bother those women said their dead father was Aboriginal, he was not.
Today 5 brothers still feel hurt and question why.
A gap exists in that family.
As time passed those kids, all white produced more, every one of the next generation became subject to extra help.
No not Aboriginals, oh under law yes fact no.
But two boys and a fine young lady wed in to that proud race.
The girl has treasures we may never have wonderful man and kids.
The boys? left behind both.
Those brothers?
Moved on from a rough start live lower middle class life now.
One of them, a mate and a brother,votes LIBERAL!follows Manly!
Our dad was not Aboriginal.
Is truth of interest? what do we want of our politicians? is it only victory at any price?
What ever the future honesty must pay a roll or we are nothing.
PS GO MANLY BRO!

I have to say that I do support the judge's decision, but for one reason only: Bolt was factually wrong in the basis for his accusations.
For example, he claimed that one of those he verballed had a German father, when in fact, she has an Aboriginal father.
Had Bolt been factually correct then I think he would have won this case, and probably rightly so.
But if we writers are going to publicly denigrate someone, then I reckon it behooves us to get the facts right.
I think Bolt fell into an increasingly common trap in today's media world.
His is a self avowed idealogue who passionately pushes his extreme right wing views. But, on this occasion, I think he allowed his idealogical motives to get a little ahead of his common sense.
Though I did love his little homily outside the court about how we should all focus on what we share on not on our differences.
This? From Andrew Bolt? With a straight face? Really?
You gotta love it!
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Surely if the issue is, as Lexi points out, that Bolt incorporated "errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory provocative language" in his articles, there are other remedies available under the law apart from racial vilification?

My concern is not that Bolt has been rapped on the knuckles for being an ignorant, vindictive and thoroughly nasty person, but that it has been accomplished under the heading of racism. The door becomes wide open for prosecutions based upon race-hatred, whenever a voice is raised against someone who claims protection merely on the basis of their ethnicity.

Sorry, I still believe it was the wrong judgment.

Hi Anthony,

Yes, what Bolt wrote was offensive, as freedom of speech allows. And yes, he got some of his facts wrong, but not to any fundamentally huge degree. In the case you are referring to (I am assuming?), the father was not German, you're right, but HIS father was German, or at least German-Australian, and his mother was Aboriginal. She had been sent out to work after her own mother died and, in turn, died in childbirth when the father in question was only five or so. HIS non-Aboriginal father put him and his siblings into a children's home and he did not discover that he had any Aboriginal ancestry until he was in his late thirties or forties. So the person subject to Bolt's article would not have known of any Aboriginal ancestry until she was in her teens.

I must say that I feel very uncomfortable writing about people as if they are just objects of study, but I guess this case has provoked that sort of examination. Yes, what Bolt wrote was objectionable, but his main point was that many people claim, and exploit, an identity from which they can gain significant lifelong benefits. Is that so ? We still haven't had this debate yet.

The Aboriginal people who I have knocked around with over fifty years have rarely been raised in comfortable, middle-class families, with both parents working, and living in a relatively affluent and beautiful suburb. Most have been raised in constant, daily, touch with relations. They can remember - or still endure - hard times. Most of their friends have been Aboriginal. They may look out for a police car when they are about to cross the road, in case they get pinged for jay-walking. The graves they visit are of other Aboriginal people. For many Aboriginal people like them, Aboriginality is all around them, they live and breath it - not traditional stuff, but the experiences and legacies of mission and settlement life. To me, that's what it means to be genuinely Aboriginal, 24/7/365.

Joe

If these complainants had a legitimate complaint it should have been brought under the defamation laws. I suspect it wasn't because the standard of proof plus the implied right to freedom of speech in the constitution would have made them unlikely to succeed.

The problem for On Line Opinion is that many of the views posted here are based on incorrect facts, but in the case of those expressed in the area of race, under this ruling, it seems likely that I will have to make a judgement on the accuracy of those facts. OLO is just not equipped to do that. We don't have the resources.

So that means that I will be unlikely to carry articles on indigenous issues, or other racial issues, while this case remains the law.

I may also need to be careful about other areas, such as Israel.

Hi Graham,

You raise a very disturbing point. But surely OLO is not responsible for the views of any contributors ? You quite properly exercise your discretion already in relation to trolls, and inflammatory comments.

And if OLO was ever sued for defamation on the strength of what somebody contributed, then I am sure that there would be plenty of us out on the streets :)

Joe

Joe and Graham,

An interesting question on OLO's responsibilities. Are newspapers liable for anything defamatory they publish in their opinion columns, and does that apply here, being that comments are not scrutinised before they go up?

If you look at the terms of use of the site you all indemnify us against any legal issues with anything you post. By accessing the site you also agree not to sue.

Two issues.

1. An indemnity is only as good as the financial strength of the indemnifier. If you have no assets then we are in the gun as the publisher in many cases (note that the HWT was a party to the Bolt action).

2. Whether you can contract to forgo legal rights such as a right to sue for defamation by accessing a site has yet to be tested in the courts.

Another issue is a resources issue. When complaints about material arise they do take significant time to resolve. That means that one will tend to err on the side of caution in terms of determining what to publish and what to remove. I take the view that to publish in this space you have to be prepared to devote some time to defending free speech rights, and not to do so means you will be completely tamed. But that view does have limits.

There most certainly is a risk to OLO and the decisions has a chilling effect on open speech.

I would suggest no.

Only recently I submitted a thread suggesting the amount paid to AUs pensioners and illegal immigrants, but it appears that it was rejected.

Also, it appears that some indigenous folk use their very distant bloodlines to thier own financial benefits, of cause at the expense of the tax payer.

Doesn't this just put speculation about a person's racial identity out of bounds?
Nobody should be forced to defend or justify their racial identity, we all know who's who out in the real world and normal people don't mind if you ask about their background.
I'm a racialist but I can live without discussing the details and focus on the issues. The case is actually a win for people who hold similar views to my own,be they Indigenous or ethnic White Australians, it's an unambiguous statement of the fact that under the law Race is real, it matters and this is why.
Having a racially aware population isn't an impediment to good relations it's an enhancement, the more we talk about it the better.

Just making the point that OLO does promote free speech in an openly broadcast way, in the very nature of comments "not being scrutinised" before they are visible to the public.
Newspapers have the power to vet opinions and to be selective as to the views expressed. I believe OLO is valuable to the extent that it does provide scope for relatively free expression and access to a broad audience.

Dear Pericles,

Regarding Andrew Bolt.

I beg to differ.

All one has to do is Google the man's articles and
his stance on so many topics into which he brings race
consistently into the equation.

The following website is a good place to start:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/media-2/andrew-bolt-is-officially-a-racist/

I from the first post understood Grahams concern, it is unquestionable, some one has to take the blame for comments here.
Unlike Graham, I think Bolt is a lessor human, true!
He like others leaches a living out of half truths and anger.
But I suspect, forgive me if I am wrong, loudmouth like me, knows a basic truth.
Our first Australians are poorly served by blindness.
My story's are true.
Thousands are using our system, without any link to Aboridginality, to take funds they should not, have no right to.
WE, US, enforce failure on our Nations first people.
Our heedless unknowing love to them is hurting them.
226 years ago we came.
That is so very long ago, we still have shanty towns.
Todays new housing development is tomorrows shanty town.
We blame our selves and that is in part true.
While ignore this truth within this mans lie we ignore those we defend.
Noel Pierson if given the job of assistant to the Minister , if heard by all, would fix the problem we have watered and fed for every one of those years.
In the end press is largely against Bolt or for him.
Those who ignore his intentions in that story have no regard for truth.
Those who ignore thousands of whites pretending to be other are not helping these folk.

Belly,

What you say about phony Blackfellas is depressingly true - people without any Aboriginal ancestry whatsoever, people who can spin a yarn and con some Aboriginal organisation into signing them up and 'confirming their Aboriginality', it's all gravy for them, after all. The tragedy of it all is that these people get good jobs and move up the ladder, while Aboriginal people are shut out.

I remember one guy up at Flinders Uni who tried to get admitted on the grounds that he was a Torres Strait Islander. It turned out his great-great-grandfather used to own most of the western half of Adelaide and big chunks of Darwin, etc., etc..

My wife Maria was in charge of an Indigenous support program and at one time, she asked one of her students, in conversation, who her family was, family connections, that sort of thing. Her cousin was Aboriginal, the student said. But are you, what families are you related to, Maria asked. The student got very stroppy and threatened to take her to court if she ever asked that again. So my wife knew she was a fraud, but she had Aboriginal friends - and her cousin - who stuck up for her, and the institution was too afraid to support Maria, so she had to let it go. That student graduated and is now in a very good position in Aboriginal education policy-making.

So many stories, too depressing :( Meanwhile, other Aboriginal people can't get a look-in, usually darker Aboriginal people. Corrupt academics and bureaucrats often seem to single out who to 'sponsor', who to pamper and promote, and often they choose these very people, with smart mouths on them, who then have a rapid rise up the hierarchy. I'm certainly not saying that it happens often, but often enough, too often. I know a guy here in a good position in Aboriginal affairs, a nice guy, but he admitted to me years ago that he had no Aboriginal ancestry, only Afghan. I'm not so sure he was right, but there you go.

Cheers, Bully, keep fighting :)

Joe

I still don't accept that Aboriginality, however one discerns it is an "advantage".
What do these "Light Skinned" people get that I don't?
Government assistance or a government job? Whoop de do.
The private sector is where the real money is and Aboriginality is still a liability due to the prejudices of most employers.
Are you folk saying that these "Light skinned" people are actually causing disadvantage among "real" Aborigines?

Dear Belly and Joe (Loudmouth),

This is about Andrew Bolt and the fact that as the judge
stated quite clearly - and I again quote:

"The reasons for the conclusion have to do with the
Manner in which the articles were written,
including that they contained errors of fact,
distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative
language..."

Bolt was on trial - and he got the verdict he deserved.
Stop making excuses - the man's past history is an
abomination - and should not be swept under the rug or
excused under any circumstances.

I am surprised at the vilification of Andrew Bolt going on here.
You should be careful, using the new interperatiuon of the act he now
may have grounds to sue those making such remarks.

I read some time back the writings that were the subject of the case.
I don't remember anything adverse he said about aboriginies.
I do remember that he got stuck into those who were pretending to be
more aboriginal that they really were.
The question I remember was at what percentage of aboriginality would
an application for a privilege fail ?

I think that is what the complainents were on about.
Errors between father and grandfather were not a matter of standing.

I saw this quote elsewhere and I think it makes a good point.

"So let’s say I call Andrew Bolt an arrogant, dishonest and irresponsible tosser who routinely bends the facts to suit his rhetorical purpose. I can say all that, and my only legal fear is defamation. I can also deride him as an arrogant man without running afoul of any extra laws.

But if I call him an arrogant white tosser, or an arrogant Dutch tosser then I have to worry not only about defamation but also about the Racial Discrimination Act. I can make aspersions about his gender, his occupation and his mental health and worry only about defamation. If I raise his ethnic identity and his race, then there is an extra legal worry.

The test will then be whether I am offending people, and whether I am expressing an opinion in good faith."

However the fact remains that he deliberately withheld facts in his article that contradicted his own opinion because he sought to make a mean-spirited and biassed misrepresentation to incite a particular dislike toward a specific group.

Like many like him, he simply wants to make a particular point and then works backward to contrive supporting evidence.

I think such pundits should not be classified as journalists and their articles hould be tagged with a warning that they are "for entertainment purposes only and not to be considered accurate reflections of fact".

Dear Bazz,

Come one - you can't be serious regarding Mr Bolt.

Vilifying Mr Bolt? A man who's famous for vilifying
others every time he writes his column.

He's brought everything upon himself. Setting up
people against each other is what he does best
and gets highly paid for it. However, this time
he's been pulled up for it. All this righteous
indignation in his case is mis-placed. Perhaps
he'll learn to clean up his act in future. and try
to stick to facts without and distortions. Although
I wouldn't hold my breath. After all he's never wrong,
and he'll use freedom of speech as his excuse for fiction
not fact.

Before you give Mr Bolt your sympathy - have a read
of the man's past history - you may actually learn
something from it:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/sorry-andrew-youve-bolted-headlong-into-racism-now/

The sad part is that Mr Bolt is willing to offer solutions to Indigeneous issues which many people agree are a good idea but few are brave to address. They are happy to have a loathing mentality towards the whites pushed by academia and blame them for every ill. Bolts ideology is very similar to that of Noel Pearson and yet no one would dare call him racist. Free speach has been dealt another blow. The furphy of him not having his facts right could be attributed to numerous Government officials every day. The Governments climate change propaganda is almost without measure. We can have a PM lie to the electorate but the judge focus's on a very debatable point in order to demonise Bolt's often commonsense attitude. Really it is quite disgraceful. I would imagine Bolt has done far more for the aboriginal cause them many of his haters on this forum. He is at least willing to face truth and facts unlike many of those stuck in their idealogies and dogmas which delight the judges decision.

Lexi I have no need to read about Andrew Bolt to know he is as I have said here, worthless.
I too need no research to understand many, like runner and Bazz, will never see him for what he is.
Do not over value the understanding or ability to consider all sides some can not do that.
Any insult aimed so far at Bolt here praises him, he is worse than that.
Now it is time for me to again be offensive!
No other way exists to serve Aboriginal Australia.
Too many, from a bottomless pit of failure to understand, keep them pinned in those shanty's.
I doubt it is worth it but those government jobs are a treasure in rural Australia, wages above country average and full time.
A white holding one after lies is wrong.
I think more than 8.000 whites, it may be four times that,claim benefits as Aboriginal, every thing from special needs to pocket money.
And some, our education system gets extra funds for looking after failures but nothing for Victory's.
IF we polled our country, believe me, this white pretending to be black is not a rare thing.
Bolt knew this he fed his chooks,used terms he never should but hiding the truth is no answer.
IF Noel Pierson, now, entered our debate, we could find how wrong our handling of these folk is.
In a way not using such as him, instead of public servants to help solve these issues is paternalism and in the end racism.

runner,

Gillard went back on a promise, true. I won't defend that too much although I do agree with her decision to do so. She was also pulled up on it (and will probably never hear the end of it) which is more than can be said for the lies, half truths and inflammatory aspersions Bolt injects into the public domain day in, day out.

Even when I've agreed with Bolt's overall position in an article (albeit a rare occurrence), I've always always always found lies and distortions of truth and missing information in his work. He is excellent at what he does, which makes it all the more damaging.

The difference between the Bolt case and anything that goes on in OLO is the matter of audience. Bolt's readership, and that of the Herald-Sun, is unfortunately massive. His paper's influence over public opinion and sentiment is quite impressive, again unfortunately.

When one organisation, i.e News Ltd, has so much influence over the public domain, it is vital that our system is able to hold them to account. Unfortunately, until now, Bolt has been presenting his diatribe of inflammatory and misinforming crap to a large, susceptible audience, most of whom read nothing else, without once being held to account. The lies go unchecked.

The result of this, in my opinion, is a complete undermining of the quality of democracy in this country. If the electorate are being misinformed and unfairly aggravated one way or another, how can democracy be working properly?

Bolt is NOT a journalist. He is a propaghandist. He has people like you believing that he knows more about climate change than global scientific community after all. Now that is genius.

In the most recent edition of "Crikey,"
an interesting summation was given and I quote:

"If Bolt had got his facts right, if he had made
a conscientious attempt to weigh the evidence, then
he probably would have won his case even if his words
did offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate. He would
have been exempted under Section 18D of the Act, which
protects fair comment."

"As David Marr puts it in his piece in Fairfax newspapers
today - Justice Bromberg's judgement is not an attack on
freedom of speech, but on bad journalism..."

And -

"Bolt's methods - not only his factual errors - but the
way in which facts that didn't serve Bolt's purpose
are ignored. "

"The judgement amounts to an expose of which Media Watch
could be proud."

As stated previously - we expect truth and honesty from
newspapers - whether its opinion or not - it has to be
based on fact, not fiction.

We can live and hope that perhaps this will be - as a
warning to others to clean up their act.

Andrew Bolt often points out labor's shortcomings, so it is little wonder many on OLO dislike the guy.

Unfortunately, the truth often hurts, whether you are a labor supporter, an indigenous member or both.

Now if anyone seriously believes that this race deserves all they receive, from the tax payer, then you live on a different planet than I.

In fairness though, ther are plenty of non indigenous people who play the system and play it well.

Dear rehctub,

You also need to get your facts straight.

Try this website:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

Lexi, you can't accuse Bolt of being selective in his facts and do the same thing yourself. How about quoting from the end of the Crikey article where Margaret Simons sums up her position?

"Whatever the worth of what Bolt wrote, and I think it was highly offensive and wrong, it was in one sense not all that extreme or unusual. Similar views can be heard in many pubs and cafes, on the street, and indeed among some Aboriginal people. Justice Bromberg’s judgment contests the rationality of Bolt’s defence of his words. No problem there. The problem is that the conclusion to the argument is a finding of illegality.

The judgment means that journalists, particularly well-read, influential journalists, are to be held to higher standards than ordinary people. That the public "deserves to be protected" from them. It’s a dangerous notion.

Civil libertarians have for a long while argued that the Racial Discrimination Act is too broadly worded. I agree."

Speculation is one thing Jay of Melbourne, (about a persons racial identity). In Bolts case he chose to connotate or reflect his opinion upon the character of the subjects. A practice that fundamentally vilifies, and this is the real issue here.

In this case the victim/victims have legally challenged this form of reporting and rightfully won. Racial awareness and understanding can be much better achieved without vilification from powerful media figures JOM.

I concede R0bert that both sides mimic each other today regarding policy, but the initiators of this process of pressing the xenophobic button for political purposes began with John Howard and has continued and intensified with Abbott. It is a divisive and dangerous tactic.

Prior too this era we had a much more civilised and progressive view of both refugees and the indigenous people, until the Liberal Party made these people the political football we experience today.

"Imagine how we would seem to the rest of the world if we turned the boats around and sent them back out to sea , as determined by Abbott himself as our PM".

We would be International hicks and pariahs overnight, if we aren't already with the overseas antics of Morrison and Bishop in Malaysia etc, in their respective Shadow portfolio's. We are at least local pariahs already (with the exception of Nauru), if Abbott gains Gov't. A stroke of diplomatic genius that is.

The views of people like Andrew Bolt whom incite, not report in their articles, reflect badly in our own view of ourselves. Creating a lowest common denominator effect. This does not go unnoticed Internationally and in the end reflects badly in the view of us in other countries, and our place in the world.

I agree with the court's decision.

To imply that people do not feel their Aboriginality because of their lighter skin, or that they simply milked the system, is an absolute joke.

People should have the right to take legal action when they are wronged.

The right really needs to lift their game when they make their points on Aboriginal issues and assimilation.

I have been doing research on the HC Coombs papers, and i will be making a detailed response to the rubbish that seeks to denigrate and exaggerate the efforts of past individuals helping Aboriginals.

Divisive rubbish put forward by Bolt and others should never pass as insightful commentary, even if they get regular gigs in the Murdoch papers.

Yeah but, Wobbles it doesn't work that way, the Anti Discrimination laws don't apply to White men, they were never intended to protect us, no judge would uphold a case of racial vilification against you, or I, or Andrew Bolt.

There's been a slight shift toward equal treatment of White men under the "Hate Crimes" laws in the U.S, simply because the number of Racially biased crimes by Blacks on Whites has gotten so out of control that the prosecutors have to do something about it. I heard the other day that the first Hate crimes charges are being laid against participants of Black "flash mobs", groups of Black youth who seek out and bash Whites and Asians.
The scales are slowly starting to fall from White people's eyes regarding "Racism" and those who perpetuate the myth of the "Evil White Oppressor". There are dozens of "Anti Racism" groups in this country yet there is not one "Racists Group", not one exclusively White political party, community group, club or school.....so what are Anti Racists fighting?.

GrahamY,

Are you serious? Journalists should most definitely be held to higher standards than Joe Public chatting in the local cafe or pub.

They are supposed to be professionals. They hold a position of authority and influence in the public sphere.

A true, working and fair democracy relies on it! An ill-informed/misguided electorate undermines democracy at the core

NOtice no one was offended by the racist offensive behaviour directed towards Bolt after this decision. Oh that's right the ABC/SBS only report on facts (often fantasy in their own mind). No wonder they are considered so low by the majority of the population with such a loathing attitude towards those who built this nation with sweat and often tears. What a joke to slag off at Murdoch when we have such blantant left wing bias with tax payer funded national broadcasters.

Put your glasses on Trashcan - not my words but Margaret Simons. I was correcting the false impression about the article that Lexi had given.

I think journalists should be held to higher standards than the guy holding-up the bar, or most commenters on most blog sites. In this case Bolt failed to exercise due care in researching his facts, but that doesn't make it a case for the Racial Discrimination Act.

I've just read the judgement all the way through. I think the judge is wrong in the imputations that he draws from the articles and in his analysis as to how they fall under the ambit of the act.

He appears to say that any comment about race falls under the act, irrespective of the intention of the person making it, or whether it promotes racial discrimination, and that this position is balanced by the defence that the statement was made in good faith.

While he has some authority on this point it appears logically ridiculous and onerous on anyone making a comment that involves race who might find themselves dragged before a court and then forced to justify themselves because the other party is offended.

In my view this sort of complaint is one that should only sound in defamation, in which case it probably wouldn't have got past first base.

Thanks Graham,

I really shouldn't read off the iPhone, and maybe get my eyes checked too.

I was a bit astounded that you would say that so I'm glad you didn't

Runner,
It makes you wonder what these "Anti Discrimination" laws are for, remember when Rob Hulls was proposing legalisation of discrimination against White Men in favour of women and racial minorities on the grounds that we'd "had it too good for too long"?
This is a man with two young sons...these "Anti Racists" are ill in the head.
If something of this nature offends thine eye then always look for the person at the top of it all, almost without fail they'll be someone who looks like you, only they have no loyalty to you.
You could call Bolt a Nazi, a White supremacist...any racial epithet under the sun and far from being prosecuted you'd have a whole section of those allegedly opposed to racial discrimination, the so called "Left", slapping you on the back.
When it comes to White people , in the eyes of Anti Racists two wrongs always make a right, they say they are Anti Racist, what they are is Anti White, Anti Racism is just a code word for Anti White.

Jay Of Melbourne

Could not agree more but I also think the leftist elite who have made all there money from Government contracts or university fees loathe someone who speaks commonsense and has done well for himself through hard work. His success obviously makes them feel small.

Clearly discussion has not been suppressed, in fact it has been sparked. Graham, one point to consider is that Bolt's comments were about specific people. No wonder he was sued when he made such blatant targets of identifiable people. You face less risk if people posting here don't name names. Obviously there are issues here that society is working out. And there's a lot of public debate about these issues. More debate, not less, because of this case. And I reckon that's a good thing. It's free speech in action, even if half of it is about the so-called death of free speech. One thing to consider is that this is regarded as an issue about "race" - but there's only one human race on earth. It was believed, just as it was believed that the earth was flat, that there were a number of races on earth, and the vestiges of that belief are still with us. These races were classified on visual appearance but DNA showed that was wrong. Linnaeus classified people as Europeans, Africans, Asiatics and American Indians. He also had a class called Monstrosus for giants and dwarfs and there was another class for mythical beings like satyrs. Science moves its goal posts. DNA came along and phenotypes - visual differences - turned out to be misleading, we are all one human race. Skin colour is a function of 10 genes out of about 50,000. Graham, I reckon you'll be fine and dandy, and free from legal action, publishing articles by named authors, and opinions by sometimes dodgy people using pseudonyms, as long you don't let anyone bully individuals by name.

It is my view that the Bolt case is irrelevant to OLO.

Whereas in newspapers the presumption is that what's written is factually true (and people even pay for that), here on OLO the only implied presumption is that what's written represents the author's opinion, hence there is no place for "factual errors".

So long as one writes their true opinions in OLO, even if they be racist - suppose one writes: "I hate all orange people, believe they are all bastards and wish they died", no factual error was committed, as indeed the author holds such views.

Therefore, Graham, it's OK to continue as usual and let the issue go.

I agree with Yuyutsu, although I take Graham's point with respect to indemnification and resources. This site is a place for the discussion of many topics. Discussion is not journalism and those who express their opinion here have no bestowed authority to speak from. In expressing their views and reading the views of others there is a commerce of ideas which can lead to changes in perspective.

Bolt is essentially a spruiker who has a high platform to speak from. He is not having a conversation with his readers, he is making pronouncements from the mount which he hopes will cause people to respond in some way. To compare the obligations, access to information and motivations of a professional columnist with those of a casual blogger on OLO is frankly silly.

There was recently a discussion about visual migraine in which several people offered me medical advice. Should they be held to be as authoritative and well-informed as a professional medical practitioner? If the advice they gave was wrong, would I be able to sue OLO for allowing them to publish it? Somehow I couldn't see that flying.

I reckon you're safe Graham. Just keep doing what you've been doing and all should be just fine.

Loudmouth, I'm thinking there's no relevant difference between people like Geoff Clark and myself. Whatever he may be able to call an entitlement that I cannot is based on a difference between us that nobody can identify other than by reference to ancestry. My ancestors are Scottish, English, Irish and Danish. The English side is from Yorkshire. All of my ancestors were on the wrong side of the British wealth and social divide. When my Irish ancestors arrived here they were in chains and their family in Ireland was dying in the famine. My Grandmother was 3rd generation Australian, but she spoke of those times as though she'd lived them, as her own grandmother had.

I reckon I need special "Irish ancestry" handouts to help me cope with the trauma.

Yeah I think the point we need to focus on is one Amanda touched on, Bolt was sued, not charged with a criminal offence, he's not guilty of any crime, he's just lost a civil case.
As far as I know Brendan O'Connell was the first person convicted under Racial and Religious tolerance laws, though I'm willing to stand corrected on that.
The civil suit is a neat trick used all over the world to silence those with unpopular views.
Don't like someone's opinions?
Bankrupt them.

A simple yet classic example of the difference between whites and aboriginies, is a little place called white patch, on bribe island.

Never heard of anyone complaining about this name.

Yet, if it were called black patch, all he'll would break lose and somebody, no doubt at the expense to the tax payer would try to have the name changed.

Coon cheese i another classic.

White sauce is fine though.

I know a family that's father is very distant aborigine.

Now they were not aware of this, however, when they found out it opened up a whole new world. Ab study for the extreemly white kids was a classic.

Runner I need to address your fixed and some what blind views.
It is not worth the effort, I under stand that.
But like Rechtub you put views up that should be challenged.
In another thread you questioned my right to be a spiritual being? because I vote Labor!
Sir.Madam your self confidence is miss placed.
Rechtub,this thread is not about Aboriginals, I think it is about truth and the right to express it.
Andrew Bolt is not a reporter, he is and always will be a person who constructs debate to bring anger and headlines.
He as are most red rag shock jocks, is conservative in name extremely so.
He mixed his cake well and knew the out come.
Truth was involved, he could have said most of what he said, see his own column, indifferent terms and no one could act.
Australia shares some of his concern, even those like me who think he wastes the air he breaths.
I understand he said things proving wrong/untrue.
But am sickened by the junk that ignores the truth.
This country should unite on Aboriginal welfare not throw it about for political gain.
And in my view, both sides use this issue for personal matters.
I want to say this, like it or not,up the thread is a true story from me.
If today we did DNA tests on every one of us.
Our parentage would start a war!
Claiming ancestry is not proving it.

All this is what happens when you make discriminatory laws.
Here is a thought.
The aborigines came out of Africa and migrated to Australia.
The rest of us here also came out of Africa by various routes.
As we all have the same ancestors can we all claim to be aborigines ?
After all we have the same ancestors !

How do you think that would go in court ?

Bazz.

They arrived here between 50-75,000 years ago - a longer continuing association with the land than any other race of people.

"....when ancestral Aboriginal Australians began their journey, the ancestors of Asians and Europeans had not yet differentiated from each other and were still in Africa or the Middle-East."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/aboriginal-dna-dates-australian-arrival/2913010

I s'pose that would sorta make your attachment to the place a little more acute.

Another puzzling aspect of the accusations of racism in Bolt's utterances is that he wasn't targetting the individuals concerned because they were Aboriginal, but because - in his opinion - they were not.

How does that work?

It underlines the grounds for defamation, particularly where he got his facts wrong. But racial vilification against Aborigines? Hardly.

Any offence on the grounds of racial stereotyping, if any, should be taken by non-Aborigines, on the grounds that Bolt was tarring them all with the same brush.

(Apologies for the singularly inappropriate metaphor)

Belly

'In another thread you questioned my right to be a spiritual being? because I vote Labor!'

Please don't make up porkies. If you can't win an arguement don't make up stories.

i wasnt going to add further to this topic
cause the greyman dont read my posts anyhow

so saying to him..via a forum..even his own forum
that bolt got shafted..not his news paper
is likely to be lost upon him..who has gotten into this state by selective bias via complaint...[but of course thats only my opinion]

this topic has exposed the heights of absurdity
[as anti has pointed out]..when we have medical advice handed out to him..by people voicing their opinion..heck as if people cant tell opnion[or bias]..from fact

as if we cant sepperate the ego
from the medium..that allowed it to be voiced
just the moderator saying oh well guess i will just have to be more firm..is just what those shutting down free speech want

nothing like silence
that allows good men to do nothing
so those with vile can do whatever the heck they want

who would dare to complain

as i said previously..here is someone got it wrong..ANYONE CAN FIX IT INSTANTLY..simply correct the error..its not like a news paper..here the whole thing stays..*on the same page

you cant get more fair and balanced than that
no place to hide..its right here in writing
wether you read it now..or in 1000 years

there is no relating the bolt thing
cause his paper wasnt sued

then of course how much did it cost andrew in penalties
relitive to his earnings..i will let you have 100%
of my earnings cause i got nothing from olo
or anyone else

so much so im leaving the web..when my limited
dodo server contract expires..on 4 dec

im over feeding pearls before people who know better
and israel issue is important..they really want armogeddon
[to deliver their messiah]

..to vanquish them landless peons
they hold in prison]..lol..the absurdity
wont even let me ask was the lawyer or judge a semite with blue eyes

cant wait till i cant acces the web ever again
it will be such a relief..not to feel obligated to help others

Pericles, I'm sure you already know the answer to your question. The aboriginal welfare industry that has been so generous to the people involved in the Bolt case relies on having as large a constituency as possible. Therefore, it behooves them to be as offended as possible at any suggestion that simply being white is sufficient to disqualify one from claiming Aboriginality.

To put it in the perspective of my own case, what the Court has decided is that my Danish grandmother (making me 1/4 Danish, for the mathematically challenged) gives me the reasonable right to claim offence at anybody suggesting my claim to be Danish is ill-founded.

I'm still puzzled by why the minority Aboriginal ancestry is more important to some people than the majority that's not and whether it would be if there were benefits to NOT having aboriginal ancestors. Perhaps Loudmouth can explain?

My thoughts exactly, pericles.

Antiseptic, I have no trouble at all with Geoff Clark and the Atkinson brothers claiming Aboriginality - they were raised on, or confined to, government settlements at a time when Aboriginal people were not allowed to be in town after 5 pm - one of Arthur Upfield's Bony novels, set in Echuca just down the road from Cummeragunga, pivots around this policy. No matter how pale people may be, such history, such experience, very much conditions how people see themselves. After all, if their white ancestors, fathers or whatever, have shot through, and the only relations people have around them, and if their play-mates and neighbours are all Aboriginal, then they have become Aboriginal, and that's how they will quite properly see themselves for life. Blame it on policy, on feckless behaviour by white men, or history, but that's how it is.

But: in my thirties, I lived for some years in an Aboriginal community and if I had discovered then that I had some Aboriginal ancestry, I don't think it would have been ethical for me to thenceforth strut about calling myself Aboriginal. My first socialisation has been non-Aboriginal and that's what lays down how one sees oneself: what one finds out in one's adulthood has much less influence, at least in my case.

Like you, my ancestry is Scottish, Irish, Geordie and (I hope) Welsh. Finding out about much of this in later life doesn't change who I think I am. But I tell you what, if I had been raised from birth in an Aboriginal community, with only Aboriginal relations and friends and neighbours around, and whites in the local towncalling me names, then I'm sure I would think of myself as 100 % Aboriginal, regardless of skin colour.

But as Pericles wrote, much of this controversy is precisely about whether or not certain people are Aboriginal. Anybody who has worked in Aboriginal organisations would have encountered non-Aboriginal people claiming Aboriginality. To accuse them of not being Aboriginal is hardly racial vilification, simply voicing a suspicion that some non-Aboriginal people are trying iton.

Antiseptic said:
I'm still puzzled by why the minority Aboriginal ancestry is more important to some people than the majority that's not and whether it would be if there were benefits to NOT having aboriginal ancestors.

Careful, someone got into trouble saying something like that.

A question, does the legislation have a defined limit to aboriginality ?
Is 1 16th, 1 64th, 1 256th, - - - - 1024th, 2048th, 1 4096th
1, 16384th etc etc.

Surely the legislation is not open ended ?

Antiseptic,

Thanks for your query asking " .... if there were benefits to NOT having aboriginal ancestors."

You're serious, aren't you ?

Policy, especially between Federation in 1901 and the 1960s, provides you with many answers: the rights to vote, drink, live where you liked, live in towns, to marry who you like without having to get permission, etc. My wife's grandfather, and many, many of his fellow-Ngarrindjeri from Point McLeay here in SA, fought in the 48th on the Western Front for two years during the First World War, even though he and his mates did not have the vote, couldn't drink (he got pinged for that in Sydney when he came back in 1919 and spent a week in the cells), and didn't get anything like a soldier-settler's block - although he did get an Army great-coat which he kept all his life. Back on the mission, the school curriculum had been dumbed down from a standard curriculum to one which didn't get above Grade Four, from 1908, and no kid there finished primary school between 1908 and the fifties, and so were barred from secondary schooling. The legacies of those policies are still blighting the lives of many Aboriginal people.

So what were you saying about benefits ?

Joe

Then there's the case of my great Grandmother, her paternity was until recently unknown but her surname suggested links to a local Aboriginal family.
In the end the truth came to light via some documents my old aunty had stashed away then forgotten about due to her dementia. Her parents were simply unmarried British migrants, her father did a runner when she was a baby and her mother re married to one of his cousins but you can see how things get mixed up over a period of decades.

BTW the alternate theory on Aboriginal origins sees them as descended from other Asians who colonised Africa and the Pacific, not the other way round.
It's he said/she said, on one hand extremely White skin, green eyes and Red hair are thought to be far more ancient than dark skin, that people of my complexion with blue eyes and brown hair are hybrids of these first people and some other races.
The Y chromosome studies are suggesting that dark skin possibly evolved in Asia and came to Africa within the last 15,000 years.

But that's not the point, Aboriginals were here first and their descendants have a right to claim that ethnicity, that much at least is beyond dispute.

Jay of Melbourne,
You may not be aware of very recent information.
A lock of hair obtained from an aborigine on the Kimberly coast 100 yrs
ago was found in a British museum.
DNA examination showed that the aborigine ancestors left Africa before
the ancestors of those that went to Europe and Asia left Africa.
So they were a separate strain of out of Africa.
They did not derive from Asians.
They did have a common ancestor, just earlier but only in Africa.

Dear Graham,

I'm not going to argue with you.

Kindly read the following website.
It puts things into their proper
perspective regarding Mr Bolt:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

cont'd ...

Dear Graham,

BTW: You implied that I only quoted part of an article
regarding Mr Bolt.

Perhaps what I quoted was relevent to the point I was
making and the rest of the article was not. Was what
I quoted factual. Therein lies the difference between
myself and Mr Bolt.

People have a right to their own ancestry, no matter what percentage of their total make-up it is. The legal definition of aboriginality for ABstudy claims etc is more than just blood ancestry. You have to show you identify yourself as being aboriginal as well as prove acknowledgement by the aboriginal community itself. While this in itself probably isn't too hard to fake, the incidence of people faking that they are aboriginal can't be too high that it should be of major concern. This may be a cost to society, but it pales in comparison to the cost to society of organisations using religion to avoid tax (e.g. Sanitarium) which doesn't seem to hit Bolt's radar.

Skin colour is actually completely irrelevent. My cousin is ¼ aboriginal but has blond hair, white skin and even had freckles growing up. Meanwhile his brother has quite dark skin. Should that mean his brother has more right to his aboriginality than him?

"It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discusss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves," Bolt said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/andrew-bolt-racial-vilification-court-case/story-fn7x8me2-1226148959221

And yet Bolt is still writing his column for the Herald-Sun and has his Sunday morning telly show.

..................................................................

"Afterall, what is the use of free speech if you can't offend someone? And OLO operates as a forum where people can discuss ideas, no matter what their background is, or how well or otherwise they express themselves." Graham Young

And yet OLO is still coming to a PC near you.

...................................................................

Maybe the ruling by Justice Bromberg was, as David Marr stated in Thursday's Age, more about sloppy journalism. In which case, OLO has nothing to fear as it is a forum, as Graham Young has stated, where people are free to offend and nothing to do with journalism at all.

Tiny tea-cup meets little zephyr.

Lexi, some of the things that Bolt was "pinged" for were exactly what you have done - selective quoting. Margaret Simons was not saying what you said she was, as shown in the paragraph I quoted. I had already read the Marr piece before starting this thread. Typical Marr who is to the left what Bolt is to the right.

In terms of who is an aborigine, the judgement lays out the criteria, which include not just some aboriginal DNA, but acceptance by the aboriginal community as a member. So Anti, you're not Danish under that definition, unless the Danish community accepts you as a Dane. Judgement has an interesting discussion of effect of colour too.

There seems to be a huge misapprehension here about who can breach this act. It is not limited to journalists or people with large audiences. Merely by posting here you get access to a largish audience, even though it doesn't come to read you per se, but all of us. And if you don't show good faith in what you post, and it causes offence to someone in a racial group, then it could be an issue for the forum, and hence for me as the publisher.

It is not even a matter of whether it might get to court and whether I might succeed. I do not have the resources to run that risk in most cases, so it will have a chilling effect on discussion.

I've had threats a number of times to take us to HREOC, and in one case it eventuated. We got a mutually satisfactory result, but it took a lot of my time, and I'm not keen to go there again unless I really have to.

Ammonite, it is more than a storm in a tea cup. It is actually a huge own goal by the left. The coalition will most likely come to government after the next election with a mandate to significantly amend the Racial Discrimination Act, and probably some other parts of Australia's Human Rights apparatus because of this case.

While it has nothing to do with this current government it will get the blame, further disaffecting the blue collar conservatives from them.

The best thing that could happen for Julia is that HWT appeals and wins, in which case the act will regain some of its repute. If they appeal and lose it just keeps it in the news and makes it more certain it will be an issue at the next election in the outer suburbs where government is won or lost these days.

I love all the implied references to "reverse racism" or how the laws only work one way because they don't.

Along with sterotyping, antagonism toward and indifference about the opinions of the "other" group, presenting yourself as the real victim is one of the classic signs of racism itself.

It won't change what can be said in OLO beyond the Editor but there are a multitude of other sites where anybody is free to say anything they like. Opinion is one thing but one hopes (in vain) to get fair balance in the paid media.

Murdoch doen't have a press presence in Canada because over there it's illegal to publically broadcast anything you know to be untrue or misleading.

If Bolt made a similar unsupported smear against say, Jews, there would probably be even more noise and less people trying to leap to his defence.

I see no own goal from the left GY.
If any thing no different than the anti Malaysian ruling a judge, this time ruling on truth, not content.
Bolt knew he was walking on ice, he as much as any one could have re crafted his words.
He spoke however about things that concern many Australians, I have given just a few examples.
Those asking what advantage can be had, by a white being excepted as Aboriginal , may be do not know enought about this subject to take part.
Bazz that is feeble and will not wash.
Two things stand out to me Bolt got it wrong, always does.
And his point about racial content of some is being white washed by PC people unaware only the truth can help these people.

People have a right to their own ancestry,
Trashcanman,
that goes without saying. What no-one has any right to at all is inventing their ancestry & that I think is what the gist is of this thread.
I witness the latter on a daily basis & it causes nothing but conflict.

Hay wobbles, what's this unsupported smear bit?

Bolt stated a home truth, which some don't like. It is actually a small minority who don't like it, but it is a minority which has been given a power way beyond that they are entitled to.

That the law is interpreted by an even smaller minority, gives these rulings,that are way out of step with the community, good sense & justice.

Get ready to duck mate, the worm is turning.

individual,

yes agreed, the rest of my post supports that although perhaps my position underestimates the extent to which it occurs and therefore to the impact on the broader community.

I'm not questioning your claim that you experience it daily. I would however like to know to what extent and in what context you experience this and the ensuing conflict.

Hasbeen,

The whole point of the judgement was that Bolt made unsupported claims about named individuals because of the colour of their skin (i.e. that that they were white claiming aboriginal heritage), in an attempt to publicly denegrate all pale skinned people claiming aboriginal heritage. It was a unsupported smear, no two ways about it.

While I think the case for racial discrimination is a little thin, this case does highlight that the likes of Bolt, as probably a reflection of mainstream journalism and particularly the Murdoch Press, need to be held to account for what they publish as "news".

The value of democracy depends on the electorate being properly informed.

Belly said:
Bazz that is feeble and will not wash.

What comment does that refer to Belly ?

Trashcanman,
the daily impact of this is the dysfunction of most communities at huge expense to the taxpayer & the detriment of the real indigenous. Just go & work in a community for some time & you'll see what I mean. The dilemma is that it can't be adequately described without attracting huge criticism from the feigning indignation society. Just go & experience for yourself I say to anyone doubting the validity of claims made by those who know.
You'll more likely than not hear very similar words from the real indigenous themselves.

Still no one has offered an opinion on whether the act has unlimited application.
Parliamentary ACTs usually have time limits or other limitations or
unexpected results occur.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3071066.html
While from the left as GY calls us I found some interesting stuff in this.
I too do not want judges ruling on journalism.
And I remain convinced we should be totally free to investigate who is and who is not part of any race.
Bit put out still by Grahams view its a leftist own goal.
But yes think strongly some who sit on court benches may be better suited in green ranks.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/herald-and-weekly-times-weighs-up-appeal-against-bolt-judgment/story-e6frg996-1226152264731
To me at least Bolts own words in this link highlight an own goal.
True think he admits here he crafted his words in such a way he opened a door that need never have opened.
A look too at a story about Clark ,why he took his action, is worth a look.
It reminds those who need it about his past.
I personally have no regard for him too but worth a look.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156
And finally a strong defense of Bolt from what most see as a lefty source the ABC.
I always, have taken the stick to those who sit in judgment.
And am not alone in questioning do judges/courts rule or governments?

I suppose that there are many rorts of different types on the system.

Whether it is claiming false medical conditions, or anything else falsely, and it is in the public's right to know that this is occurring, it should be valid to report this.

Surely, not permitting this based on 'race' is racism also.

We digress now GY on this post when we discuss such concepts as percentages of aboriginality and postulate on genetic origin as a validation for being here.

The truth is we are all Australians except our indigenous people, because a declaration of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin, results in an immediate reduction in opportunities for the person declaring themselves indigenous in this country.

People like Andrew Bolt actually perpetrate and re-inforce such stereotyping of communities with their media clout, thereby exacerbating the situation for our indigenous people. And therefore, should be discouraged.

The real truth is, that In this country you would have to thank your lucky stars that your not indigenous, because you would not be enjoying the lifestyle you are enjoying now.

With regard to OLO , I enjoy knowing the views of many people.

I don't think the process of discussion is a bad thing at all. In fact it gives us all cause to reflect upon our respective viewpoints, no matter how robust, with respect too, and within the rules and guidelines.

If there was law that prevented free discussion, we would (all of us), be out in the street protesting with the best of the left, as we should be. The Racial Discrimination Act does not impinge on free speech, but it does impinge upon racial vilification.

In Bolt's case, he clearly vilified not only a race, but particular group of individuals identifying themselves with that race, in their individual circumstances.

If this was you or your family, (1) would you feel victimised/targeted unfairly, in the name of selling a newspaper ?. (2) Would you lie down or would you take legal action ?, or (3) would you just put it down to the fact that you were born indigenous, and consider the situation hopeless ?.

In the latter case, we don't have to consider this prospect. Nor do we have to experience the disadvantages of being indigenous, in Australia.

Sorry Belly,

That article does not really defend Bolt, but does criticize the judgement.

You could never accuse Holmes of being left or right. He is balance personified.

Thinker2,

Nice summation, I totally agree.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuts-come-out-after-the-truth-has-bolted-20110930-1l1al.html
From Lefty like me, [anything of substance is lefty junk] but expressing another view.
I am rather proud most seem to share my views about Bolt.
Still would be pleased to see some truth.
How many know, understand,to become an Aboriginal.
This was my point to you Bazz, all you have to do.
Is be excepted as one,by they community.
My continuing services to that community, has twice, seen me offered recognition as? an Aboriginal.
I could, LEGALLY, drop all claims my ancestors treated them badly and become a victim! over night!
Our first Australians can be served much better by actions and truth.

Loudmouth, I confess to wording that poorly. I know there are historical issues associated with being Aboriginal in Australia. I also know there are hstorical issues with being Irish in Britain, or peasant Scottish at the time of the Clearances

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

Then there are all the terrible things that have happened to other populations of native peoples around the world, some of which have simply been eradicated.

My point? We've all got historical ethnic baggage. Australia has had, for many years now, quite a lot of additional support for Aboriginal people, accessible for the asking. If my ancestors could pick themselves up after being carted halfway around the world against their will and thrown into a completely different and hostile world, why the hell can't Aborigines do the same with all the help in the world living in the same society as the rest of us? Bloody-minded adherence to one's heritage is all well and good, but it doesn't help the kids.

Graham, I confess to reading the judgement itself after I made that comment - serves me right! However, my point remains: how much "aboriginality" defines "aboriginal"? Should I define myself in some way other than "Australian" since I was brought up in another country of parentage that was from still other countries? To what end?

I don't much like Bolt (think he's a bit of a tool, TBH), but I think he's been hard done by on this issue. If there was no money in being an Aboriginal advocate, nobody would have cared and I suspect he'd not have even mentioned it.

ABC's "The Drum" web poll is about neck and neck.
51% deem the decision a victory against racial intolerance.
49% view it as a blow against free speech.
Antiseptic.
Race and culture are separate issues, Race is indelible, culture is transferrable.

I don't think adherence to "culture" is the problem, the lack of exposure to any traditional culture or assimilation into the Hollywood version of Afro American lifestyles appears to be hurting all disadvantaged youth across the country regardless of race.
Kids with a solid grounding in traditional concepts of decency and morality who are raised in loving homes are less likely to run off the rails, those ideals are common to all people and all cultures.
The vast majority of people living in poverty in Australia are White, so it is for cases of drug and gambling addiction, alchoholism, poor mental health, suicide etc.
It's a tragedy that anyone lives like that in the 21st century, poverty is not "worse" for Aboriginals or "better" for Whites it's just misery all round. We live under the stewardship of an elite who despise the "feckless poor", people forget the purpose of Eugenics was to eliminate the underclass, read Mein Kampf, Hitler makes it pretty clear why he wanted to put his programs in place.
The postwar drive to eliminate poverty has always been Eugenics driven, no more poor people equals no more poverty, we see almost daily expressions of that on OLO, people wanting control populations in Africa etc.
They wouldn't dare comment on high Aboriginal birth rates but we know what they're thinking, don't we?

Yeah, really democratic that is. Those who feign indignation at Bolt's apt description can get him hammered yet those who soberly digest his comments have to swallow the bitter pills. As I said very democratic indeed. Hooray to Judges who wouldn't know what day it was in the real world. May I suggest these judges learn some indigenous language so they can understand what we are being called without anyone in ignoramus academica raising an eyebrow ?

Thinker2 said:
In Bolt's case, he clearly vilified not only a race,

Well actually he did not. He picked on those that were making choices
that he thought were spurious.
There seem to be many who are saying he is racist etc etc when actually
what he said was the opposite.

I think some people should go back to school and learn to read.

No one has said there is a limitation on how many generations back you
can claim aboriginal benifits.
So, I can claim that my Somerset and London ancestors are descended
from the tribes that migrated out of Africa as did the aboriginal's
ancestors. Therefore I have common ancestry with any other aboriginal.
The proof is in my DNA which is acceptable evidence in court.

See where unintended consequences gets you ?

Well Bazz, the unfortunate truth is that the bulk of Aboriginals are our blood relatives in the very literal sense,we can't disown them even if we wanted to, they're part of our extended family. That's the mess racial assimilation leaves behind, haves and have nots, in groups and out groups, castes based on skin colour alone.
Anyone contemplating racially mixed marriage might want to study the very real consequences for their offspring, it isn't something I'd inflict upon a child.
Mix one race with another and you create a caste system, if it hadn't happened in every single case throughout history I wouldn't be pointing it out.

Individual

Bolt's "apt description" was proven to be based on false claims. Claims he knew or at least should have known to be false. In fact Andrew Bolt could be caught out in the majority of his articles for distorting information, omitting facts or outright lying to persuade readers to his want. And he's bloody good at it.

Bolt and the news ltd papers have a virtual monopoly over the information many people in Australia use to form their opinions on all matters of public interest. Furthermore, lazy journalism in mainstream TV media follow the easy path and go along with it. Then there's Alan Jones and the like. This creates the public opinion that leads to polls that low-mettle political parties base their policy making on.

Is it good that public policy is influenced by false information? Is that how you envisage democracy working

One final post on this subject abd I quote from David Marr's
article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Judge Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say
or where we can poke our noses. He's saying that if
Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of
appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts
straight."

"Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In 2 famous columns in
2009 he took a wipe at "political" or "professional" or
"official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to
identify as black for personal or political gain, to win
prizes and places reserved for "real," black Aborigines abd
to borrow "other people's glories."

"Even Bolt's lawyers HAD to concede even before this case
began in Federal Court that all nine of these named
"White Aborigines," had identified as black from childhood.
All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down
the track but were raised as Aborigines."

"Their evidence was NOT contested by Bolt or his paper. So
as they say in the trade. No story!"

"Yet Bolt went at it with mockery, derision, and sarcasm.
They are Judge Bromberg's words. He added,"...the language
utilised in the newspaper articles was inflammatory and
provocative."

As Marr tells us, "Bolt's now making a list of convincing
denials to explain his mistakes, language and motives.
Denials are one of his great talents: with a smile on his
face and his hand on his heart he's happy to claim the
purest of motives evn in the unhappiest circumstances.
Usually works like a charm."

Thankfully, not with Judge Bromberg!

See you all on another thread. I've had enough of wasting
my time on this one.

Bolt and the news ltd papers have a virtual monopoly over the information many people in Australia
Trashcanman,
yes, but how does this monopoly differ from the monopolies reared by the guilt industry ?
I for one can not get myself to subscribe to the two wrongs make a right philosophies of the feigned indignation brigade be they black, white or as in this case debatable.

Because the newspaper decides who from the so-called "guilt industry" gets validated and who gets derided. Simple as that.

Graham you created a slice of Australia here.
I see denial, dislike, inventive statements.
I see too much posting of an opinion, without reading others contributions.
All views got a run.
But I am reminded often, far too often comments come from people who know ZERO about these people.
IF ONLY we could without the blindness investigate and understand why shanty's still exist.
Some left, not me, want to blame any one, to cuddle the poor down trodden for another 200 years, build new soon to be old shanty towns.
The right wants? never truly knew.
I have answered your question, the threads title, in my posts.
I see Lexi,s anger, but stand by my path.
In my posts I told of false claims to be Aboriginal, gave numbers highlighted it is fact.
I told of jobs, very well paid, permanent, put a side for Aboriginals, given to whites.
I Even put truly existing fueled by poor or no education Black racism on the table.
I know, and respect, you are conservative, and that Andrew Bolt is both loved and loathed.
I loath him, forever, ten others like him.
He too, if he was not forever farming headlines could have said as I have here.
We can talk about race,we should talk about it.
Even more we should do something about it.
From within the best of this community a cry to end sit down money to earn not receive to help but not serve must be heard.
Those who wish, BY AUSTRALIAN LAW can go to a mission shanty town and get close enough then asked to be excepted as ? Australian Aboriginal with papers to prove it!

"In Bolt's case, he clearly vilified not only a race, but particular group of individuals identifying themselves with that race, in their individual circumstances", is what I stated Bazz.

Implying that this was done for the advantages of being indigenous is in itself inaccurate for there are no real advantages in being indigenous in our country, unless you are making a comparison with the poorest of the poor or some other disadvantaged group. Doesn't this connotation vilify a race in itself Bazz ?.

Bolt goes on too refer to individuals in his article whom (in his view) fit the fictional category of claiming to be indigenous for financial advantage, as I understand it.

This stirring of the public imagination for political purposes is becoming the norm in both our politics and our media, to our social detriment. Thanks to the judge in this case, a line in the sand has been drawn. Scurrilous drum beating such as the stocking trade of the Andrew Bolt's and Alan Jones's of the world should be taken with a pinch of salt in the minds of thinking Australians.

Thinker 2: "there are no real advantages in being indigenous in our country"

But there are advantages in being an Aboriginal advocate or an advocate of any kind that can manage to get Government funding, which was Bolt's point, I think. Given the singular failure of such advocates to make much of an improvement in the lives of ordinary Aboriginal people, indeed it could be argued (and has been, by Noel Pearson most notably) that such advocacy is simply a drain on resources that could otherwise be used to effect, as well as actively distorting the way in which resources are allocated.

As long as government hands out money to some people based on the needs of some other people there will be an incentive for some people to take advantage - black, white, yellow, red whatever.

http://www.racismnoway.com.au/about-racism/understanding/index-what.html

"Contemporary expressions of racism which have emerged in
recent years deal with notions of nationhood which are seen
as incompatible with diversity."

"These racist beliefs are
expressed in various stereotyped views of who the "real"
Australians are."

"This form of racism is based on an
ideology of national culture in which minority cultures are
regarded as alien and a threat to social cohesion."

"These attitudes are widely discussed in the media where they
are presented as reasonable and commonsense and reflected through
media images that do not accurately portray Australia's cultural
diversity. In this way, racist ideologies are expressed and
reinforced through a process of group interaction and thereby
are absorobed into popular culture."

"These racist beliefs are also at the core of the resentment
expressed by some people at measures taken by governments to
address the disadvantages of particular groups of people."

"Affirmative measures are frequently seen as the preferential
treatment of one group at the expense of another rather than
the means of redressing the disadvantage inherent in society."

"Examples include opposition to Aboriginal land rights, calls
for the removal of special benefits for particular groups and
resentment towards the provision of English language support
for migrants. These beliefs are compounded by the notion that
treating all people in the same way equates to equity and
social justice, when in fact not everyone begins life with the
same opportunities."

"This resentment often finds expression in the belief that
"reverse racism," is occurring. The notion of reverse racism is
that people from the dominant culture are being discriminated
against and are not receiving the same benefits as people
from minority groups."

"This damages communities by
limiting the contributions of its members and disrupts
peaceful co-existence and co-operation between groups. It
damamges individuals by destroying self-confidence and
preventing them from achieving their potential. It is
particularly damaging for children as it hampers social
development and limits educational opportunities."

"The consequences of all this is social injustice, a less
productive economy and a divided community. Clearly detrimental,
not only for its victims but to society as a whole."

There are a few facts being missed here. One is that Bolt was not found guilty of "racial vilification" or even racial discrimination. He was found guilty of upsetting some Aborigines because he questioned their claim to be Aborigines. If you read the judgement you will see a long explanation by the judge as to why he can make a finding under the act even though Bolt has not discriminated. You can see the discussion from 191 on.

Another fact is Marr's "fact" that all the people named identified as Aborigines from childhood. It may have been something that was strategically conceded by Bolt's counsel in the trial because it was not seen as an issue that needed to clutter-up their argument.

Take Larissa Behrendt who is discussed at 117 and on. I've read the summary of her position from the judgement and it is hard to completely square it with this interview that she gave the Sydney Morning Herald just over a year ago. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lunch-with-larissa-behrendt-20100917-15gbs.html.

And for those not interested in just point scoring, please read the judgement not assume that you know what is in there or rely on some secondary source pushing their own barrow http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html

Taken from the article by David Marr cited earlier:

"Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt."

"She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine,
including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers,
and is often interviewed demanding special rights for
'my people.' But which people are 'yours exactly mein
liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more
rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

As Marr Points out: "Among the problems here are that
Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white
German, and like all the others, Behrendt was raised black.
Judge Bromberg wrote," She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion
that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never
had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has
'identified as Aboriginal before I can remember."

"Bolt did not contest her evidence."

Lexi, Lexi, Lexi.In your opinion they're "Racists", you only call them that because they're White, anti Racism is a code word for Anti White.
There's no such thing as "Reverse Racism", it's another Anti Racist strawman argument, proposing that dumb people think that White Australians are being disadvantaged in relation to Aborigines.
It's an idea held by nitwits if at all, if Anti Racists think they're beating back a tide of deep seated or institutional racism by indulging in their favorite pastime of attacking those they deem inferior then it's no wonder the Left are so despised by healthy, normal White people.
"Bogans" are an easy target for wimpy middle class intellectuals, journalists and bloggers who've never been punched in the face over something they've said.
Those of us who live and work around "Bogans" listen to them and try to point them in the right direction, we don't demonise or dehumanise them on the basis of Race or presumed intellectual capacity.
Being a snotty smartarse and talking down to people about "Diversity" is a quick way to earn yourself a bunch of fives.

Lexi would you kindly name one middle class, educated "Racist" individual or like minded group? I've requested this of you before and had no reply.
Name the serious players on the organised ideological "Racist" scene.
I've also pointed out previously that there are dozens of "Anti Racist" groups,reading and discussion cirdles and publications, there is even an "Anti Racism Australia" registered at an address in Adelaide.
Name one registered,openly operating "Racist" group, club or association.

Lexi, don't you have any ideas of your own? If you're going to defer to others to do your thinking for you, why bother even commenting?

Graham, I've read the judgement and I'm still not convinced, either about whether vilification occurred or about the bona fides of some of the claimants. I'm even less convinced that Bolt is on the wrong track in regard to the political and other benefits gained through self-identification as an Aboriginal for some people. As he points out, a moderately-talented person who might fade into obscurity will be a darling of the Left if they claim to be Aboriginal and can throw "stolen generation" and "my people" about with appropriate panache.

What I find more broadly interesting is the way in which Australian laws are becoming more and more based on the plaintiff's claimed feelings, rather than of protecting from genuinely objective hurt, such as loss of some kind. I reject the view that says we have some inalienable right to live our lives without ever hearing anything offensive. That's simply not sustainable.

The judge says (at 15 in the summary):"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective assessment of the likely reaction of those people."

Which begs the question: how can I objectively assess your likely subjective response? The judge seems to want two bob each way (cont the para above):"I have concluded that the assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people. General community standards are relevant but only to an extent. Tolerance of the views of others may be expected in a multicultural society, including from those persons who are the subject of racially based conduct."

This seems to me to be ignoring any question of objectivity in favour of an assumption that if one says they are offended, they are.

I'm offended by that.

At the risk of opening still another can of worms, I have to wonder whether the Judge's own religio-ethnic heritage might have played a part in his judgement. Some parts of the Jewish community have become very adept at claiming offence to silence opposition.

I'm not by any means suggesting that Justice Bromberg has acted improperly, but I have to wonder whether a judge of a different cultural background may have made a different ruling. After all, this ruling gives enormously increased power to those groups who wish to claim offence for advantage, since it makes clear that "objective" really means "subjective" in Justice Bromberg's view, anyway.

We are a nation of immigrants and as such we have a large variety of ethnicities rubbing against each other. It seems to me that the ruling is creating friction where none need exist.

I'd go further and suggest that the left in Australia demands such friction in order to exist. Faux-outrage is the preferred form of expression and the more that can be clothed in a false legitimacy the better. It's all about "framing the debate", not about having good points to make.

Careful Antiseptic,
Judge Bromberg has behaved impeccably as far as I can tell, his judgement reads as fair and properly argued.
In presiding over this trial he's opened himself up to accusations of a conflict of interest but looks to have risen above any prejudices he might share with Andrew Bolt.
Bolt is an avowed Zionist and we can presume from Mr Bromberg's associations with Zionist groups, such as Chabad that he shares that viewpoint.
Bolt's pro Zionist stance goes beyond the political, he's publicly suggested that in order to better serve the interests of Israel Jewish Australians might want to reconsider their support for Racial and Religious tolerance laws.
What Bolt was saying in effect was that in order for non Jewish Zionists to show effective support for the Jewish state they needed a full range of expression, to be "let off the leash" to deal with Muslims, Leftists and other undesirable viewpoints in order that Jews might be spared any backlash or other indignity.

OK Now we are straying into the area that gives OLO potential problems under the ruling. Neither Jay nor Anti could be said to be discriminating, but the fact that they have mentioned race means that they come under the act.

In which case, if some member of the racial groups they mention is offended, then they may have to justify their opinion using the laws applying to defamation.

That means that while their opinions can be as mad as they like, they have to have their facts straight. And if they don't then not only are they in the gun, but so is OLO. So already this morning I've had to check Bromberg's racial heritage, and now I need a reference to Chabad, whatever it is, and to proof that Bromberg is a member.

When it comes to defamation generally, our no flaming rule which forbids calling others, including those not on the forum, names, essentially takes care of it. Plus the implied freedom of political expression in the constitution is an additional shield.

In this case the implied freedom is said not to apply, and anything said about race that is potentially contentious could trigger a problem. While the site wasn't set-up to discuss personalities, it was set-up to discuss issues that include race. So the judgement is a problem for us.

That may be the intention of the legislation as there are some that believe, including on this forum, that one should never make adverse judgements about race. That of course is an absurd position, and if followed would never allow us to blame the German people, for example, for Hitler and the Holocaust!

If it is the intention of the legislation it should be repealed. If not, the judgement should be over-turned.

Dear Jay,

I've answered your questions in a previous thread.
You simply refuse to accept them. Also kindly
re-read the link I gave and do try to comprehend what's
being said.

Dear Antiseptic,

You're such a charmer.
Keep up the good work.

I'm not sure if he's a member, Graham, but he is certainly associated, as a simple google search will show. It seems to be some sort of Jewish social club?

Whatever that may mean with respect to his personal views on the issue of racial vilification I have no idea. I didn't know of the association until Jay mentioned it and I checked.

Lexi, is that you? Couldn't find a quote?

cont'd ...

Dear Antiseptic,

All opinions are formulated by what one hears and
reads to a certain extent, and the best way to express that
opinion in full is by quoting the source from which
it was obtained. This enables others to read the cited
text in full and makeup their own minds.

Dear Antiseptic,

Yes you sweet man. Tis me.

Looking for quotes?

Try your local library.

I think what Graham is getting at is that even if you say something that's true about a particular ethnic, religious or racial group if they find it offensive you could be in hot water.
I think that in the context of this debate it's important that we draw a line between a "Show Trial" and a "Kangaroo court".
The Bolt trial was a show trial, it was very much about sending a message, that's not to say any impropriety occurred, the proceedings were all above board but they were conducted in a very controlled way.
There is a point to be made about the role of nominally "Jewish" advocates and activists in so called "human rights" law, I'd rather not speculate on why that may be, for obvious reason but let's just point out that it's an area of legal specialisation that seems to attract them.
Jewish advocates are good at picking their battles, they'll take down someone like Fred Toben because he's a clown and a show pony who'll come out with some moronic soundbite virtually on cue.
They don't take on David Duke because he's articulate, well informed and is capable of diverting their message, or of preventing outright the dispersal of the message that these trials are supposed to send.
Bill Noble, in his "Hate trial" in Canada remained mute throughout the proceedings save to point out a fault in the testimony of his Jewish accusers, his few sentences all but destroyed their case and the media buried it, the message had been tainted so the trial lost it's "show value".
Anyway at the risk of stepping onto further thinning ice I'd advise anyone who has a point to make about "Jewish" human rights advocacy to tread carefully, better yet keep their musings to themselves unless they are prepared,as David Duke says, to have the Hounds of Hell unleashed upon them and their families.

Antiseptic, Graham,
Just do some googling on Chabad Lubavitch, look at criticism of the organisation by Jewish commentators as well, but as above, it's a subject best avoided lest it come back looking for you.
Also interesting are google image searches of the keywords "Kevin Rudd Rabbi" and "Kevin Rudd Imam".
I make no assumptions or statements based on those results but the obvious direction people will look look would be the criticism of the John Howard/Exclusive Brethren relationship.
There's no difference at all in the two scenarios, Howards philo Semitic Zionism is merely complimented by his support of Christian Zionism, he could hardly function as a Zionist without working with both groups.
Ah I better take my own counsel, as I say to young people who want answers to the Jewish questions,don't go looking for trouble, if you're pro White or pro Nationalist it'll find you soon enough.
You'll get not a word more from me on this issue.

jay..quote..""what Graham is getting at..is that even if you say something that's true..about a particular ethnic,religious or racial group..if they find it offensive you could be in hot water.""

mate i just read..what grayham said
he specificly said..*race

not catholholics..not muslim..not zionist..not neocon
[unless they include..a vilification of..'A'..race]

se mate we smokers arnt a race
we bikies arnt a race

we bloggers arnt a race

i wish i ccould have sued under race vilification[and defamination when we had the 'debait'..with all those lies about smokers..

or about the druggie vilification
and then the ridicule i cop for loving god..[but that isnt race either]

race is a specific thing...[im not even sure a semite is a racial term under the act]..not even sure..that nationality is a 'race'

races are presumably a narrow field
that if not defined specificly..[in the act]
voids the act into many generalities

so lets hear what race..is IN THE ACT
negroid is a race?

then you got the other race..caucasian?

and asian..[as said repeatedly
ab/origonality is a generic lable
[were all abo from somewhere]..there is a racial lable on native people from these lands..[australis..some/thing something]

escimo..or american indian..might be races
we got the northern type races
the dark skined semites..*might be a race

BUT..

[continues]

Jay, I'm afraid it is not good enough to tell me to go off and do your research for you. Either you cough up the exact relationship of the judge to the Chabad or I am going to take the post down where you refer to it and probably suspend you because it all takes too much work chasing down sources for someone who refuses to provide them, but who, if they have done the work sufficient to meet the judge's standard of "good faith", must have them.

SHOW A RACE componant

i think
we need to go back to..*the act

and read what 'race'..means..!
unr 'the act'

before we get a race..to the door
or a race..to the bottum

the high court will need to clarify
the limitaions of race..!

what inclusions
what exclusions

religeons cant be race..[and if they were
they too would be seen clearly..as racist]

this issue needs clarification
urgently

i feel i need..racial protection
as my smokers race..is going extinct

laws are a scam
BUT..if no one raises complaint
bad laws get validated..because no proper appeal defence was presented

many of the grounds with drug law
wernt propperly defended...and now are refused on the grounds
that high courts have ruled..on this or that

but the basic truth is that any plant in the ground
is legally and lawfully a fixture..[not a fungable]..and any fixture[affixt to or on the land..is a part of the land

thus cant be 'possesed'
yet 35,000 kids pleaded guilty in 1999 alone
to possesing..

[bad law...comes from ignorance]
so to the lable race

Graham,

Can you take heart in knowing that it was Bolt that was found to have breached he Act, not the Herald-Sun? The precedent has not yet been set for publishers/editors/moderators, has it?

I know the Act specifically includes e-forums, however I would think the editor of a newspaper has greater responsibility over the content of the newspaper than the moderator of a forum does.

Trashcan you might just pardon me for being a tad irritated. Do you bother reading anything? Where did your last comment come from? Do you realise how much risk there is for the publisher of these forums because of the ignorance of the commenters?

Paragraph 29 of the summary of the case reads:

"As to the relief which should be granted by the Court, I intend to direct the parties to confer with a view to agreeing on orders to give affect to the Court’s reasons for judgment. I have indicated that the Court will make a declaration that Mr Bolt and the Herald &Weekly Times have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I have also indicated that I will make orders prohibiting the republication of the newspaper articles. In the absence of the publication of an apology, I will consider making an order for the publication in the Herald Sun of a corrective notice."

That is both Bolt and his publisher who have been found to be in contravention of the act. The title of the case says the parties to the case are PAT EATOCK v ANDREW BOLT and THE HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES PTY LTD (ACN 004 113 937). How much clearer can it be? Where is the comfort?

I had only read sections of the judgment referring to Bolt.

From everything I've read, I'd never seen a reference to the HWT.

I understood it was Eatock V Bolt only.

Fair enough. You have reason to be cautious

A couple of interesting comments in the Australian.

Firstly, a piece from Wesley Aird, who happens to be Aboriginal and a member of the Gold Cosat Land Council. I'm not sure if this means that he is exempted from the Bromberg ruling; can an Aboriginal person be racially discriminated against by another Aborigine, or is it sufficient in the Brombergian view that the plaintiff exists and says they have been insulted? The good judge seems to have ignored that issue in his judgement.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/more-transparency-less-hypocrisy/story-e6frgd0x-1226156373200

"IT is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Judge Mordecai Bromberg in handing down his decision on the Andrew Bolt case felt the need to explain the meanings of such words as offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate.

Followers of the Bolt case will also be familiar with the term hypocrisy. Here's a clue - it's about double standards.

In my experience politically active Aboriginal people are experts when it comes to dishing out abuse. Fighting hard and dirty has been turned into quite an art form by indigenous people across the country trying to protect their slice of the $3.5 billion that the government spends each year on indigenous affairs."

Anyone feeling offended yet?

and

"Yet try to threaten a person's funding and you will experience firsthand what it feels like to be offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated; and unlike the Bolt case, this will be the desired intent. The real professionals in race-based intimidation are Aboriginal people whose vocation is to divest the commonwealth of funds.

I know of communities where the government directly finances invented tribes, fabricated history, waste, petty corruption and the occasional threat of violence or death. There are no lawyers to contrive affront; there is no judge; just more government money going to the usual suspects for no benefit."

and

"I can't help but form the view that the court case was intended to use the Racial Discrimination Act to intimidate non-indigenous Australians."

Sounds a lot like the sort of thing I said a couple of posts back, doesn't it? And a lot like Bolt's point as well.

The other article was by Chris Kenny, who has the temerity to comment whilst not being Aboriginal, the scoundrel. I'm sure he's awaiting the inquisition as I type this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/silencing-dissent-wont-resolve-indigenous-issues/story-e6frgd0x-1226156370004

"THE judicial finding against Andrew Bolt has drastic implications for free speech but it also demonstrates that in almost two decades since the landmark Mabo decision, Australia's left-liberal political class has learned little about the important priorities in indigenous issues."

and

"On the matter of free speech it is worth noting that, at least, Judge Mordecai Bromberg conceded the issues raised by Bolt were matters of public interest. But Bromberg said some of Bolt's words meant more than their literal meaning and that while he accepted the literal meaning of some of Bolt's mitigating phrases, he found Bolt did not believe them.

So now when airing opinions on matters of public interest, Australians are subject to sanction by a court according to a judge ascribing extra meaning to the words we use, or denying our sincerity in the use of other words."

I personally find the hypocrisy of the Left quite staggering. As someone who has always identified as left-leaning, even socialist in my younger days, the Establishment Left has grossly disappointed me. No longer is it about justice for the poor and the weak, rather it is about giving prominence to those who seek to benefit from the plight of others. It is about promoting the spruikers and the manipulators; the debate framers who care little for those whose existence is the sole reason they have a good job with little oversight and few demands, leaving them lots of time for their political games.

Ask yourselves just what has been achieved with this decision. Who benefits? Who is left with no voice? Think on your response if it had been an Aboriginal journalist sued by a group of European-ancestry Australians and the Judge had made the same decision (which I very much doubt he would have).

If it's not exactly the same, you're a hypocrite.

Speaking of people making a living out of being Aboriginal...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gripes-of-wrath-20111001-1l2z5.html

I won't quote it here. Suffice to say that I suspect Mr Bolt might have a fair chance at a defamation case against Professor Langton and The Age and probably a pretty good go at a Racial Discrimination Act effort as well, based on Bromberg's decision.

Apart from that, I'll just express my personal disgust at the views expressed, which are racist in the extreme, as is usual from Professor Langton.

Jeez Louise,
Here tis:
http://www.jwire.com.au/gossip/federal-judge-lunches-at-chabad/18998
There's nothing remarkable or ""suspicious" about Mordy Bromberg associating with Chabad as a private citizen, he's both Jewish and of Israeli background.
His involvement in the Bolt trial might raise some eyebrows for the reason I've stated earlier but everything appears to be above board.

This however is unseemly:

http://shturem.org/pTb/phpThumb.php?src=%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F13177_news_25022007_36459.jpg&w=453&hash=3d3112b0e10b0cc6d6150af3eb252216

Chabad isn't a "social club" it's a Jewish fundamentalist ethno/political lobby group with alleged links to Haredi extremists, organised crime, political corruption and all sorts of skullduggery.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2009/08/the-story-chabad-doesnt-want-you-to-hearan-exclusive-interview-with-historian-and-author-bryan-mark-.html#tp

As I said, we as non Jews had best refrain from critique of the internal workings of the Israel lobby but need we be so cautious about criticising pro Zionist lickspittles from our own ethnic group such as Bolt and Christian Zionists like John Howard?

I am from the left, proudly.
Dislike Bolt intensely.
Deny strongly, the left handed down this ruling.
Understand however the judge may well be of the left.
What pains me, embarrasses me hurts, is the usual suspects, yes left, are again walking around the issue.
Our country, both rewards some who are not Aboriginal for saying they are.
And we profit from an industry, some of us, that lives off these people.
Failure, long term failure, is rewarded with more wasted money, wasted promises.
Not just to some of these people who are being paid sit down do nothing money, many leach on them.
Constructive debate needs us all, to leave our biases out side.
Do we want another 200 years of failure.

its a funny co-incidence
but a friend of mine..[keven buzzacot...lawyers name is steve blot]

here are some links..to the important coat of arms case
we lost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Buzzacott

steve is a modest guy
working for free
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.boltfindlay.com.au/about.htm&sa=U&ei=-sCITp20LKiViAeat7CXDw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=cqFCmRoNF15rspYRZcwBAw&usg=AFQjCNFXW-hbiaWENB5jamcu8Df535B4DQ

and still we lost

keven told me that the emu and his totum the kangeroo
are the two law animals..[known for never taking a backwards step]

i did reserch on the meaning of words
and jew means the same as aborigonal

further that the elders of mosus
never left the desert

abnd here we are
in the never never
or the land of ozzz

and all i want to do
is go gently back into my sleep

ahhh mercifll escape
from live time vivid dreaming

yet here i am
blogging into the wind
fighting the next loosing battle

life is full of co incidence

The judgement says: "Finally, in dealing with the formulation of the orders to be made by the Court, I have observed that it is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people."

There has been discussion here in this thread about racial identification inclcuding challenging the genuineness of the racial identification of some people. However on a practical level it's hard to see who would sue.

Identity is a huge issue, I don't see that discussion of it is suppressed; it's more about finding boundaries for that discussion. Bolt's articles were the equivalent of flaming here.

Also Bromberg took into account "the possible degree of harm". As well as the hurt and insult involved one of his concerns is that he "found that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity."

In other words Bolt's words could have serious consequences. That's much less likely to happen on OLO.

It's difficult for Graham when the goal posts move but is this much different to defamation law? Graham, I am wondering if you would have published Bolt's articles and why or why not. Apart from anything else his articles seemed defamatory to me.

Young says

"In essence the judgement says that if you make judgements on someone based on their race and they are reasonably likely to be offended by it then you have committed racial discrimination, and that the exemption provided on the grounds of fair comment doesn't apply if you have expressed yourself strongly."

Readers who actually want the truth on this could look at the judgement, of which the judge's summary says:

I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D [that is, the fair comment exemption]. 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 and inflammatory and provocative language.

Now I guess it is possible that the full judgement doesn't justify this summary, that it shows no more that that Bolt "expressed himself strongly". But, if so, why doesn't Young make that case? Does he expect every reader to read the whole judgement to see if he is telling the truth?

Hi Amanda,

No, I wouldn't have published Bolt's articles. The major reason would have been that we don't have the resources to check the facts from a defamation point of view. And that if someone took offence we wouldn't have the resources to defend the action.

We have a policy position of not doing investigative journalism, and that is essentially why. You might recall http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9238&page=0.

I'd also have a moderation problem if I published something like those articles as commenters would take the tone of the article as their own cue.

I would probably have Googled one or two of the defendants as well (as I have done Behrendt) to check that things squared-up, and as an additional argument to the author as to why I wouldn't publish.

In terms of Bolt's influence vis-a-vis the influence of other venues such as OLO I suspect it won't play a big part in future judgements. The act includes any comments not made in private and doesn't lay down a size of audience test.

In terms of who could sue - anyone of the race or colour who is offended. I've already had to deal with comments on a thread that upset a Jewish reader. They were not party to the discussion, or the target of it, just a member of a class of person who was offended. We went to the early stages of conciliation with HREOC in that case.

Hi Graham and everyone else. Who could sue and who are likely to sue are two different matters. Eatock and the others were sorely provoked and surely it's not surprising that they reacted. What is surprising thing is that they did so under the Racial Discrimination Act rather than defamation laws and this means publishers have another thing to worry about - in law but possibly not much in practice.

I just don't see that this Bolt judgment actually closes down free speech. It's not all fair skinned Aboriginal people who are up in arms and likely to sue. There are a wide variety of opinions amongst indigenous and non-indigenous people; the debate is vigorous and it's open. But Bolt named a handful of people and at least some of them were informed enough and had enough resources to sue, the facts were wrong and the tone seeemed designed to inflame.

With defamation publishers are very, very careful about what they publish about anyone who has sued for defamation previously but are more cavalier about those who are perceived as being unable or unlikley to sue. You have one Jewish reader who is very touchy, maybe understandably so, and having been threatened or warned you need to careful about anything you publish about Jews. This case has set a precedent but I don't think anyone is threatening or warning OLO to be careful about publishing anything about indigenous identity. Bolt and his comments are extreme.

Maybe if you avoid articles It's easy for me to say that because I won't be called on to defend anything you publish

Damn I posted before I meant to. What I meant to say is that I reckon you can trust your judgement, like you do with possibly defamatory material.

Hi Amanda,

I don't think you understand the potential for people to make mischief. We also had the gay problem last year which caused us financial damage. This demonstrates that there are a range of activists who are motivated enough to cause you trouble.

BTW, suing isn't the threshold in the act - lodging a complaint with HREOC is and that doesn't cost anything. People with limited resources but limitless time can be a real problem.

And all this without any demonstrated need for it. The various complainants were already catered for under defamation legislation.

This judgement just lowers the barriers to entry and lowers the standard of proof. Believe me, it will get used and it will have an effect on small to medium serious publications.

You are right Graham. I didn't think of the potential for people to make mischief because I don't think that way myself. Personally I think Bolt was making mischief so I'm glad he was found guilty. If someone in a more resaonable, less attacking way had questioned if fair-skinned Aboriginal people are really Aboriginal I would have been horrified if raising the question was regarded as contravening the RDA.

For you as a publisher - publishing opinion not just by professional writers who may have some understanding of the law, but by anyone who wants to express an opinion, and some of those people are quite intemperate (to put it mildly) - yes, it's worrying. I hope you don't suppress all discussion and would be happy to see you delete flaming posts. Would it help if you had a disclaimer saying opinions expressed are not those of OLO?

GrahamY::"This demonstrates that there are a range of activists who are motivated enough to cause you trouble."

Sadly, the SLAPP has become a standard device among some groups who seem to feel themselves unable to argue their case affectively in a public situation. The case you mention was a pretty good example of that, as I recall.

The Bolt case was a little different, because he didn't offer the right of rebuttal, as far as I can tell. His column was published and it stood and there was no equivalent platform available for those who disagreed, although I'm sure the HWT would have happily published a piece by one of the plaintiffs if they'd asked. Controversy sells papers after all.

I think that's a qualitative difference between this site and the mainstream press. Anybody who feels they disagree is free to argue their case for no cost other than time and the availability of a computer of some kind. It seems to me an important aspect of the situation. There is no right to express a particular view without being challenged. This makes the Law's intervention unnecessary, I would have said.

The soap-box orator is only effective if he can answer the hecklers. If he fails to do so, he fails to make his case. It seems to me that columnists such as Bolt must make it possible for dissenters to comment. Once the letters section did this effectively, but in today's world a proper comments section attached to each column would do it.

Sadly, at least in the Fairfax press, such comments sections are becoming few and far between, perhaps because they tend to publish a lot of press releases masquerading as journalism. Can't have the Attorney-General's tame PR flack being challenged...

Individual,

Spot-on in your comments :)

Hi Antiseptic,

Sorry, I've been working out of town for a few days, so I'm just catching up. As you wrote:

"If there was no money in being an Aboriginal advocate, nobody would have cared and I suspect he'd not have even mentioned it."

This is probably Bolt's main point, that his quarrel is with people who benefit in some way - and in his view, unfairly - from claiming Aboriginality.

I was talking to an Aboriginal friend last night and he was pretty vehement about Johnny-come-latelies who corner some of the best jobs, and for life. Which will probably mean that their kids will also corner good jobs over the next generation. For life.

I remember a conversation with a good mate, back in the late seventies: we had both married Aboriginal women, and his kids were a lot paler than mine, so he was agonising over at what point - if they too married white partners and had even paler kids - did Aboriginality cease to have much salience.

We were both aware of the old 'one drop of blood' rule in the US, the racist tactic of excluding people from opportunities, jobs and resources on the grounds of the slightest trace of African origins in their 'racial' background, but at the same time were strong supporters of affirmative action, to redress the decades of discriminatory policies used against Indigenous people here.

We sort of agreed that entitlement should be related to need, rather than origin, since we were determined, each of us, to ensure that our kids had a secure and comfortable upbringing and a good education, which they all did.

[TBC]

[contd.]

So the question does come down to whether or not people who may have had a similarly comfortable and secure upbringing, with no more privation than the average Australian, are entitled to take up opportunities which were originally designed for people in far greater need, articulated or expressed in terms of skin colour and a background of exclusion and discrimination - and manifestly fewer opportunities.

But on top of that, it is true as Tony Abbott says (and this might come back to bite him when he is PM) that the right of free speech includes the right to offend. One question is whether or not it includes the right to humiliate or intimidate (how do you measure those ?). Clearly, it does not extend to the right to incite violence which actually leads to violence.

So where is the fine line between permissible and impermissible free speech ?

Joe

Loudmouth:"One question is whether or not it includes the right to humiliate or intimidate (how do you measure those ?)."

That was my own thought too. How do I make an objective judgement about your subjective response? What if you have an exceptionally thin or thick skin, or you're response is motivated by something other than simple personal offence? The judge dismissed that as only of minor interest, preferring a circular argument that used the assumed standards of the plaintiffs themselves to judge whether they'd een offended. IOW, "they said they're offended, so you're offensive".

Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Inciting violence should be unacceptable, defamation should be unacceptable. If this lot had gone that way I'd be quite sympathetic. The fact that they went down a RDA track shows this was a political stunt.

It sounds as though we're in agreement about the way funds are misdirected.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The fact remains that if Andrew Bolt wants to
accuse people of all sort of motives, as David
Marr pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald -
Mr Bolt should start by getting his facts right.

As well as that - Bolt went at it with, "mockery,
derision, and sarcasm." Judge Bromberg found the
language utilised in Bolt's newspaper articles was
"inflammatory and defamatory." In other words
Judge Bromberg is not telling the media what they
can say or where they can poke their noses (as Marr
points out). Bolt got his facts wrong." Spectacularly
wrong." And Bolt can now come up with all the denials
he likes, and try to explain his mistakes, language and
motives, (purest of course). He can put a smile on his face
and his hand on his heart and hope it works like a charm.
And it probably will with his cheer squad - like
Brandis et al.

But not with Judge Bromberg.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/does-it-all-boil-down-to-a-question-of-colour/story-e6frgd0x-1226157549784
Barry for those who do not know it is a Labor stalwart.
A minister in the big fellas Government.
He is of Jewish ancestry and I once lived in his electorate.
I forever idolize the bloke.
His writings [books]are witty and great reading.
I do not take back my opinion of Bolt.
Or that the courts ruling was a lefty plot, it was wrong.
Bolt however grub that I think he is, crafted his words in a way that left room to provoke.
Underlining the issue remains we are stalled in a mud hole of our own making and PC will not get us out.

Joe, Loudmouth I address this to you.
Because I think you best understand.
I think we are a total failure in this area.
Because more are not like you and your mate and your wives.
Because some, too BL**DY many! who know nothing are getting in the way.
I have many, good and bad,relatives, Aboriginal and not.
I spoke of my two siblings,raising the third generation of their offspring, as Aboriginals, not but being paid,
I have a relative, who has been asked,to claim to be, of Aboriginal ancestry.
So he can lease, long term lease, a $800.000 home,for $100 a week!
He said no, and our mate, full blooded Aboriginal can not rent it,because? he may knock it about!

Antiseptic,

I'm sure that there are plenty of lawyers latching onto the finer points in this case, but I wonder about whether or not Bolt's words humiliated or intimidated:

* 'humiliation' seems to require a third party (or parties), not just the person subjected to the criticism, but other parties for whom the injured party's reputation has been degraded, who think less of that person than before, because - according to Bolt - of some activity performed by, or character flaw of, the injured party;

* 'intimidation' may require an actual threat, physical or otherwise, i.e. the suggestion of damage to one's person or reputation.

Did Bolt humiliate - and intend to humiliate - any of the plaintiffs ? Does anybody think worse of them - unjustifiably - because of what Bolt wrote ?

Did Bolt intimidate anybody ? Did he threaten to gratuitously damage anybody's reputation by his words ?

There seems to me to be a very fine line here, and I'm not sure that Bolt crossed it.

Indigenous people are aware of shonks, of people claiming Aboriginality and gaining benefits from that claim. We all know of white people who write under other names, claiming Aboriginality and gaining book contracts and prizes. Demidenko was not the only fraud in Australian literature.

As well, Aboriginal people are only too aware of people who gain positions and benefits by virtue of their relationship to other powerful Aboriginal people, who use their relations to get a leg-up, and exploit advantages that the vast majority of Aboriginal people do not have, to get yet more of their relations into good positions. Just check out the membership of many Indigenous organisations: sometimes it's amazing how many people can be employed from the one family in a small organisation.

They are aware too of the closed nature of the circle of elites, who nominate each other for promotion, committee membership, overseas conferences and plaudits, and are nominated themselves when their 'turn' comes around.

As Wesley Aird wrote yesterday, it can be a pretty dirty business.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You can judge for yourself.

Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt:

" She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine,
including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers,
and is often interviewed demanding special rights for,
'my people.' But which people are 'yours' exactly
mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give
you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white
dad?"

Nice!

As David Marr points out :

"Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a
BLACK Australian, not a white German and like all the
others, Behrendt was raised black."

Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's statement
that she CHOSE to be Aboriginal and says that she never
had a choice. She has always been Aboriginal and has
identified as Aboriginal "before I can remember."

Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

I repeat, if Mr Bolt wants to accuse people of "appaling
motives," he should as Judge Bromberg said, "start by
getting his facts right."

David Marr continues; "
Bolt was wrong! Spectacularly wrong! And taking a swipe
at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines
who could pass for white to identify as black for
"personal or political gain," to "win prizes and places
reserved for "real" black Aborigines and to "borrow other
people's glories," does amount to defamation.

Even Bolt's lawyers had to concede (even before this case
began in Federal Court) that the nine of these named
"White Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood.
All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this
down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their
evidence was NOT contested by Mr Bolt or his paper.

All the nine wanted was a formal apology from Mr Bolt,
and to see that it never happens again.

Hi Lexi,

Yes, whether and for how long and in what ways people identify, and how people gain awards and positions and accolades - these are all fraught issues. I don't know how you clearly differentiate between:

* Person A who has been raised in a comfortable environment, whose Aboriginality may be easily borne and to an extent 'chosen' and who has had powerful non-Aboriginal minders and promoters helping their career along, for whatever reason;

* and Person B who has battled against fair-dinkum racism all her life, has never known any other relations but her Aboriginal ones, who has made contributions but received little recognition, and who doesn't have or suck up to any powerful non-Aboriginal people, perhaps quite the reverse, because she doesn't toe some political line that they wish her to take.

Sometimes I wish that white fellas would keep the hell out of Aboriginal people's lives and let their fortunes be dictated by their efforts, not by who they know and who can get them perks and jobs and other benefits. It's been incredibly destructive for those Aboriginal people who try to think for themselves, congtribute in their own way and run their own lives.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Bolt has made this entire issue around "Freedom
of Speech," and his so called "rights," to this
freedom. To me this isn't about freedom of speech at
all. This is an impulse control issue not an issue of
"freedom."

Having to get your facts straight is part of a
genuine expression of freedom, because real freedom
is always connected to actual knowledge. Real freedom
is never about the superficial. Without knowledge,
even freedom to speak becomes just a stab in the dark.

Anyway, the knowledge was there for Mr Bolt to find
regarding these nine people that he named - and their
facts speak for themselves

Lexi,

Yes, I'd agree that some of Bolt's targets were very unfairly treated, particularly those raised on missions and government settlements: no matter how dark or pale they may be, their entire early environment, their only relations, their neighbours and schoolmates, would have been Aboriginal. And it's very likely that some of them would have had to battle, perhaps for decades, to get themselves a good education and to build relatively comfortable lives. Some of them most certainly wouldn't have had success handed to them on a plate.

But yes, there are others who have never had it anywhere near as hard - who have effectively had a non-Aboriginal upbringing, gone straight through school to uni, straight into employment - or who have influential relations, who know what whites to suck up to in order to boost their careers. Characteristically, so I've noticed, people like these have very few or no Aboriginal friends or acquaintances except other people like themselves: so many of the elite operate as a tight circle, helping each other here, getting each other perks there. It happens :)

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't question the fact that it happens.
People are people. However Mr Bolt selected
the wrong ones - without getting his facts
right and then went at it hammer and thongs.
Plus his innuendo et cetera - copped him the
judgement. I doubt very much though whether he's
learned anything from it. I watched his show on
Sunday whether there would be any sign of
remorse of any kind. There wasn't (of course).
What was I thinking.

Lexi, unless Behrendt got her story wrong when she was talking to the SMH, she was not raised as a "black", and her father appears to have only become an Aborigine when she was a teenager.

I gave you the link http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lunch-with-larissa-behrendt-20100917-15gbs.html.

She says directly "''Dad grew up with no clear sense of being Aboriginal. He said that his father told him, 'As far as I was concerned, your mother was white.' ''

Again "It was, ironically, Raema who instilled a sense of Aboriginal identity in Larissa and her brother. ''When Jason got picked on because of his colour, Dad had said … 'My son is as white as you are.' It was Mum who allowed us never to feel embarrassed about our Aboriginality."

In your haste to get at Bolt you are doing what he did - shading the truth. And it looks to me like Behrendt has done the same. That Bolt didn't contest the story given in court is neither here nor there. There are tactical reasons why parties allow things to pass in courts that have nothing to do with the truth.

Graham,

I frankly am not interested in arguing with you.
And what I cited was from reliable sources -it's
not something I made up so there are no shadings
of any kind. I quoted the judge's own words, and
Mr Bolt's own words concerning Larissa which
neither Mr Bolt nor his lawyers contested. For
whatever reason. The fact remains that Mr Bolt
has an adolescent idea of freedom of speech .
(I gotta do what I gotta do). This is an
impulse control not an issue of freedom as stated
in my previous post and having to get your facts
straight is part of a genuine expression of freedom.

Mr Bolt got it wrong. And you can paint it
whatever way you like - as a journalist he should have
known better. You see things differently. I get that.
And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't
happen to agree with it. Let's leave it at that.

Graham, not quite...

From the same article:

Brehrendt:
"She (Brehrendt's mother) met Dad, and with the egalitarianism in the armed services, a person's Aboriginality wasn't an issue. But her father was unimpressed when she told him she was marrying an Aboriginal man"

It's pretty clear Brehendt's father identified as an aboriginal when her parents met, to the point where it was an issue with the family of her mother. Long before she was a teenager...

I truly do not know why I persist.
I am forever a Labor voter.
And demand a better out come for every person of Aboriginal decent.
I dislike Bolt.
And yes have opened a door to fraud, committed by my family members in this area.
I in truth think things I dare not say, about one of those who took this action.
I am uncle Al [Allan] to far too many to count.
But here,recently, at last,an award winning Aboriginal Artist, selling for big money, was uncovered , by true Aboriginals, as haveing no links to that race, and admitted it.
In QLD a child of the for mentioned members of my family, no Aboriginal, bank on it!
Is a great Artist, in the style and claiming Aboriginal heritage.
Truth is no threat, it is a must in building a better life for these folk.
BOTH THEY and US must confront the truth.

Thanks Belly,

Yes, you're right.

And one thing about many of the phonies is that they have the gift of the gab, they can talk their way in and out of situations. And there have been plenty of themm roughly in proportion to the good jobs available.

One guy from a generation or so ago claimed to have been raised on a cattle station, that he had been badly injured on the job and learnt to read only in hospital. Relations pointed out that this was mostly rubbish - yes, as the son of a town planner, he had worked during his school holidays (from a private school in New South Wales), ultimately dropped out and worked on his aunt's property in Queensland, been injured in a motor bike accident, and finished his Leaving Certificate in hospital.

A very bright guy, but he was really taking up space that should have been filled - and therefore wasn't - by an Aboriginal person.

I don't know the answer. Aboriginal people of whatever shade and family background are equally entitled to apply for the same range of benefits. But those with 'friends' or who can talk up for themselves are going to win the prizes, get the jobs, go to the overseas conferences. To him/her that hath, shall it be given.

Joe

Lexi, you don't want to argue because you are wrong. The SMH story is clearly different, and mostly in her own words, from what she told the judge. You're no better than Bolt.

Trashcan, that quote doesn't prove he identified as an aboriginal man, in fact the article says the reverse. You don't have to identify as an aboriginal man for people to judge you by your skin colour.

He lived in a white society, obviously with a slightly different colour, but no connection to kith or kin, and told his kids that they were as white as anyone else (and they are three-quarters non-Aboriginal).

And while I'm at it the SMH article says that the grandfather was German while Behrendt in the court case says she isn't sure where the German might have come from.

GrahamY:"You don't have to identify as an aboriginal man for people to judge you by your skin colour."

Quite so. And the converse applies: if you look white the judgement of the viewer will be skewed that way.

Loudmouth:"those with 'friends' or who can talk up for themselves are going to win the prizes, get the jobs, go to the overseas conferences."

When white men do this it's called "the old boys club". What's it called when it's done by Aboriginal women?

Antiseptic,

In my experience, it's far more likely to be done by Aboriginal men, but either way, Black or White, men or women, it verges on corruption, it's destructive, and it has drastically weakened the whole Aboriginal movement.

Joe

I was trying for maximum ironic effect Joe, but fair comment.

GrahamY

>> Lexi, you don't want to argue because you are wrong. <<

Heh heh heh, funneeee.

Maybe OLO's name should be changed to MWOTHW - My Way Or The High Way.

Lexi is entitled to her OPINION based on HER interpretation. You are entitled to express your OPINION that Lexi is wrong based on YOUR interpretation of events. Lexi is under no obligation to continue posting her opinion any further than she chooses. Capiche?

So far, since the Judge Bromberg's ruling has not resulted in any stifling of the so-called right to free speech. Well let's just wait and see how that pans out?

"Maybe OLO's name should be changed to MWOTHW - My Way Or The High Way. "

Graham didn't threaten Lexi, no highway involved - Capiche?

R0bert

Every comment I have made in this thread directly or by hinting talks of the heavy weight these folk carry.
An industry run by whites exists around them.
Failure is rewarded.
Some just will not address this truth.
Bolt is no mate of mine, BUT PLEASE he spoke the words we speak every day.
The victims here are not celebrity Aboriginals.
It is the average MISSION living no future no hope dweller.
Who may not even be able to read or write,who in the year 2011 gets information from those who prosper by keeping him/her there.
Look to Noel Pierson, his ideas and thoughts.
And look away from the Status quo, it failed, a very longtime ago.
Look at my true story's.
Understand it was not easy to open that door, but many such doors are still closed.
We must commit to truth here and then we can move on.
The evidence, my siblings used,in the 1970,s to claim Ancestry,was a photo of my dad.
He was dead by then,a black and white photo, touched up and colored for mum,showed him in his last days by the beach.
MUM told them he looked black!
In two weeks, no longer I could claim,based on those lies I too am Aboriginal!
If it had been Derrin Hinch, talking about Pedophiles would we be talking here?
Bolt remains a grub.
My Dad? a man of his time he was quite racist/and white!

Dear Robert

So sweet of you to rush to the defence of OLO's CEO.

Actually, Graham has shown why Lexi is wrong. She's wrong for the same reason the judge is wrong, or perhaps the judge is right and Behrendt was telling porkies to the SMH? That doesn't sound too likely. either way, there's no doubt the discrepancy between that account and the one rlied on in Court is quite real.

Ammonite, why don't you go off and set up your own site again dear? you can decorate it with lovely pictures and you can make the empowered (and of course self-affirming) decision not to give anyone at all your opinion. Sounds like a win all 'round...

Ammonite,

Rushing to the defence of fellow posters is one of your specialties (I recall some "special" treatment you dished out to Squeers recently because you took offence at his tone to fellow posters - notwithstanding , we all form cliques and allegiances.

Graham did not direct Lexi toward any metaphorical highway.....

Et tu, Poirot?

Poirot, don't you know that you are supposed to stick with the girls regardless of how unfair the accusations?

Fancy siding with truth rather than girl power. The shame of it.

R0bert

Ammonite,

Oui, je defends le principe..mais...je n'aime pas l'hypocrisie.

Goodness me.

Such reactions - even in French, no less.

"Un jour, je ne le prendrai pas faire marche arriere!"

Take it easy folks.

Graham,

You stated that I'm not interested in arguing with
you because I'm wrong. Really? Well I guess you
think that, because you're convinced that you're right.
Ok. Therefore there's really not much more to be said is there.
I'm wrong, you're right. I based my opinion on presented
facts and judgements by Larissa, Bolt, the judge,court
transcripts,
and if those facts are not correct according to you,
then I guess that does make you the authority.

Hey, can we get the discussion back on track? It's par for the course that Ammonite is going to be snarky with me. I try, not always successfully I will admit, to ignore it.

BTW, I'm surprised that no-one has picked-up on the fact that Larissa's father's new partner, Roberta Sykes, had a serious case to answer about her purported aboriginality, as her mother said she was the daughter of a US Negro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbi_Sykes.

So the syndrome that Bolt alludes to does exist.

However, I'm not convinced that it necessarily has anything to do with money. My older three children have an aboriginal great great grandmother which was only found out in the last ten or so years.

I remember my older daughter asking me whether this made her an Aborigine, which surprised me as I pointed out to her she was much more Scottish, English and Irish, with a bit of Dutch and Italian thrown in.

I've wondered ever since why the question even arose in her mind, and while I'm not sure even now, I think it has something to do with an attitude in society from those who are racist that any amount of non-European blood "tars" you. So perhaps the trend of identifying as Aboriginal, even when it is only a small part of your racial heritage, is a reaction against that.

Sorry :( I should have also said, thanks for defending me. I appreciate it. :)

Graham,

It's nice to be appreciated.

But I thought the whole purpose of the discussion
was Andrew Bolt.

ab/origonal...inhabiting or egsisting
in a land..from the earliest times
or from before the arival of colonists

from ab ori..'from the beginning'

jew a member of a people
who trace their ORIGONS..to judea

we are all aborigonal..[from somwhere]
we are not all from judea
but do all come from eve

adam gave us living sperm
eve gave us a living egg

god breathed life into adam
adam gave his dna..[minus that 'y' chromosone]..to eve]

life from life
god lives thus we live

the first people here..
use a capital A and a capital B
let A=adam..[Xy]..and B=eve[XX]

the AB/origonal
and the judean origonal both use the rite
and by the rite claim the right

but we are all
equally gifted our life
from the one SAME good..[god]

we are ALL..mortal heirs..[enjoined]
of the IMMORTAL holy spirit..

[the good [god]..of life logic love and light]
logus

the AB origonal
or the judea/origonal
is splitting heirs..we all can claim origonalisty

wether it be AB-origonality
or J-orogonality
ot B-origonality

or origonality is inherited equally

now race is a different issue
its a race to the bottum

any who judge of race
have no personal claim..any higher than any other claim

in fact any claim to race is lame

god made creation
we changed creation
but my peoople tell me

*WE ARE A PART OF THE LAND[creation]..
just as your hand is a part of your body

we are equal's..not under law..[cause mainly law id for just/us]

we are nnot equal under law
but by right..[god given right]

lets try to be the people
the god good of grace and generosity and gregriarity deserves

after all
he serves EACH of us..our life
why are we are not..what he DE-serves?

Gee I wish we could separate Bolt and the issue of the ruling, and its impacts.
And it would be great to know how many Australians could add to my true story.
Even better if we actually saw some action on it.
But I ask too much
Ammonite, my regards, I was getting a complex about my inability to get on with you.
No doubt my views on this issue reserve a special spot in hell for me.

"But I thought the whole purpose of the discussion
was Andrew Bolt."

I've taken it a different way. Is the judgement from the case (regardless of how we feel about Bolt himself) likely to present a high risk legally to discussing issues involving race on OLO. In particular what's the legal remifications from an editor/moderators perspective.

I'm of two minds how the accuracy of Bolts claims is to that discussion. From a site perspective Graham and anybody else doing moderation is unlikely to be able to check the accuracy of all claims made. Eg Belly is identifiable and therefore his relatives are potentially identifiable, does the site and potentially Graham have responsibility for claims Belly has made about family members?
(No attack on Belly intended there BTW).

R0bert

Dear Belly,

I can't speak for Ammonite of course.
However, I've always found her to be
an objective and well reasoned poster
on this forum. I don't think it's her
you have to worry about. And as she
pointed out earlier, we're all entitled
to our opinions - right or wrong as they
may be perceived. ;-)

Dear RObert,

I think if you were to accuse Belly of appaling motives
regarding his race - using mockery, derision,
sarcasm, without getting your facts straight - you may
have a case to answer to.

Perhaps the following link may help:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/10/04/free-be-offended

I found it an excellent article particularly in relation to
the Bolt case.

I took no offense at ROberts words, I find him a known Conservative well anchored and while we disagree often not unreasonable.
Lexi sorry know I should try harder but,value honesty.
Ammonite is ok but I do not take too kindly to controlling people.
Now back to RObert.
I stand by my every comment, not just those in this thread.
Give thought and consideration about impacts first.
FEAR! that I may express the simple truth! if challenged saves any concerns.
While failure to understand/matters related to mental health self assurance, may bring some comments known to be untrue.
Mine are true.
And please, see in that truth,Bolt yes you know what I think of him, crafts words to bring a crowd, but did not invent the theory.
Lexi, it will be hard to except, but I live for the ALP, as it was ,as it can and will be again.
No other team can do that for me.
Read Matilda everyday, thank you for that.
Saw and reviewed the link this morning.
I do not agree, in fact would gladly set the dogs on the author and all such, as more harm than good comes from such one sided reporting.
My True Aboriginal relatives are not helped by avoiding the problems black white or any color ride the industry known as Aboriginal welfare

"I stand by my every comment, not just those in this thread.
Give thought and consideration about impacts first"

Belly, I believe that, I've never seen indications of you lying.

R0bert

Dear Belly,

You're one poster on this forum whose integrity
I would never question.

I respect your opinion and count you as a friend.

This post has me concerned.
Having regard for GYs concern shown in this thread.
And a basic understanding of why he has those concerns.
Knowing a little of the back ground of some mentioned here.
I have censored myself, both during the thread.
And this morning.
I had intended to post a link, but feel it may be unwise/dangerous/wrong.
Now hear me out, some would, without concern or thought, post it.
Some take OLO for granted, its just a place to say what we think.
Well yes, but no more so.
It is the private property,gifted to us, of GY.
It has been victim before to flippant remarks, as mentioned by GY .
An unrelated story, not the first, nore the last, about one of the offended folk.
Is in this days Australian.
That paper, often, more than not, is Bolt like in my view.
It needs to soften, its far too harsh,if I am to continue hanging it on my toilet wall it must change.
I think the story, should be read.
But can I say that? now? after the ruling is linking it to this a crime?
I know of all sides in this case, not the one who handed down the judgment.
Is free speech only some times, some subjects, I am unsure.

Goodonya Belly, I was wondering who was going to mention Clark.

Looks like some chickens coming home to roost to me.

Dear Belly,

I don't agree that this issue is about freedom of
speech. As stated previously - Judge Bromberg
is not telling the media what they can say or where
they can poke their nonses. All he's saying is that
if people like Mr Bolt want to accuse people of
applaing motives, Mr Bolt should start by getting
his facts straight. And as another author pointed
out on a website I cited: "Many of us operate on an
adolescent idea of freedom. I gotta do what I gotta
do. This is an impulse control issue not an issue of
freedom. Real freedom isn't about acting on impulse.
Having to get your facts straight is part of a genuine
expression of freedom, because real freedom is always
connected to actual knowledge. Without knowledge,
even freedom to speak becomes just a stab in the dark."

Sorry Lexi, I didn't think that this was about Bolt, either, but about the limits of freedom of speech in a democratic society.

Let's get something straight: in a democracy, nobody is so privileged that they can never be offended. Nobody. Everybody is fair game. Nobody is above the law and nobody is above criticism for their behaviour or views. Whether the criticism or ridicule or whatever is justified is rarely relevant.

Most of us contributing to OLO have been offended, even insulted, from time to time but for most of us, we just cop it and dish it back, because each of us knows, or believes, that the personal insults don't have any relation to the truth, so why worry ?

It's when there is a grain of truth in a criticism that it hurts. Was this what happened in this particular case ? Is suppression of the truth the new black, to coin a phrase ?

Joe

Loudmouth

Could you please explain the difference to reporting based on facts and your claim that "suppressing the truth" is the new black?

Bolt made claims against specific individuals based on fabrication. There has been no shift in his or anyone's freedom of speech than before the court case.

Am still waiting to see if there will be any limits.

Do you agree that free speech means saying anything about anyone whether true or not?

As Lexi has been trying to point out with every right comes a responsibility. Bolt has been demonising minority groups for years, I am sure you would not like him to cast aspersions on you based on his own prejudices and publish or present on the Teev.

Will be away again for next few days.

I'm as much an anti-racist as anyone,

And Andrew Bolt's writings are very often racist (particularly towards Muslims). He also is very good at playing with the truth and omitting facts to sway the reader to his (boss') will. This contributes to disharmony in society and ostracisation of groups from mainstream society, to all our detriment.

But I think this judgement does stretch the intentions of RDA quite a bit and will surely be overturned. The articles weren't attacking people because of their race.

The articles were, however, making false claims about individuals, claims which were definitely defamatory and therefore he should answer such a case.

I don't think this case, however, will impact freedom of speech, even if it holds up at appeal. Hopefully it does, however, impact on integrity from professional journalists. As professionals, they should be expected to maintain a particular standard, especially in terms of getting their facts right.

Andrew Bolt regularly falls well below that standard. Considering the massive readership and therefore influence he holds, this has a very negative impact on society and democracy. If a large section of the public are being deliberately misinformed, how is democracy working for the betterment of society?

Andrew Bolt should be held to account for much of what he has written, but in this case, it is being done in the wrong way.

Ammonite,

If I were to make claims from which I could gain materially, then I couldn't really complain if someone questioned some of the grounds for any benefits which might flow, perhaps for life, from those claims.

Currently, I am not making any claims on ethnic/race/class or gender grounds, so I guess I would be happy to advise Bolt to go for it.

Joe

Loudmouth

You really did not answer my question. Bolt publishes lies, untruths, falsehoods about some people - would you tell him to "go for it" were he to publish lies about you?

Trashcanman

I agree with the gist of your post. However there were definitive reasons for the methods Eaton & Co. used for their actions - haven't time to locate right now, must go. They were not seeking monetary gain thru their actions merely to focus (successfully) on what a load of rubbish Bolt publishes.

Ammonite,

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: I would seek to defend myself from lies and ask for evidence, especially from someone in a high-profile position, which I'll agree might be difficult.

But if I were to claim something from which I was to derive benefits, then I would be fair game. And so would he be for his lies, in the same arena, of public debate and criticism.

It's not Aboriginal people's fault if they happen to be pale. But if they also have never copped any of the slings and arrows of government policy, or had to grow up in the long shadow of those policies, while many others have, and many much darker Aboriginal people at that, then there is at least some ambivalence about their moral right to make claims on benefits which were manifestly intended for other people.

Joe

I think Joe Loudmouth is being his own mum and dad here, he like me could say more.
But the very title and substance of the thread stops me.
Bolt is a grub, he crafted those words to offend, not every charge was untrue.
Now I could NEVER respect anyone who attempts mischief here to damage the site.
So I can not TRUTHFULLY, expand on my words.
Today, lets be careful.
A separate issue of free speech has arisen.
YOU JUST CAN NOT TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE HERE
Some who use free speech, support it only if it supports their views.
AUSTRALIANS must fight all PC if an opinion is honestly held we should be able to say it.
Antiseptic consider this, that story can not be seen in its whole because we fear telling the truth may be seen as something else!
As is the case with todays issue.