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 ?