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?