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.