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.