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?