If you look at the terms of use of the site you all indemnify us against any legal issues with anything you post. By accessing the site you also agree not to sue.

Two issues.

1. An indemnity is only as good as the financial strength of the indemnifier. If you have no assets then we are in the gun as the publisher in many cases (note that the HWT was a party to the Bolt action).

2. Whether you can contract to forgo legal rights such as a right to sue for defamation by accessing a site has yet to be tested in the courts.

Another issue is a resources issue. When complaints about material arise they do take significant time to resolve. That means that one will tend to err on the side of caution in terms of determining what to publish and what to remove. I take the view that to publish in this space you have to be prepared to devote some time to defending free speech rights, and not to do so means you will be completely tamed. But that view does have limits.

There most certainly is a risk to OLO and the decisions has a chilling effect on open speech.

I would suggest no.

Only recently I submitted a thread suggesting the amount paid to AUs pensioners and illegal immigrants, but it appears that it was rejected.

Also, it appears that some indigenous folk use their very distant bloodlines to thier own financial benefits, of cause at the expense of the tax payer.

Doesn't this just put speculation about a person's racial identity out of bounds?
Nobody should be forced to defend or justify their racial identity, we all know who's who out in the real world and normal people don't mind if you ask about their background.
I'm a racialist but I can live without discussing the details and focus on the issues. The case is actually a win for people who hold similar views to my own,be they Indigenous or ethnic White Australians, it's an unambiguous statement of the fact that under the law Race is real, it matters and this is why.
Having a racially aware population isn't an impediment to good relations it's an enhancement, the more we talk about it the better.

Just making the point that OLO does promote free speech in an openly broadcast way, in the very nature of comments "not being scrutinised" before they are visible to the public.
Newspapers have the power to vet opinions and to be selective as to the views expressed. I believe OLO is valuable to the extent that it does provide scope for relatively free expression and access to a broad audience.

Dear Pericles,

Regarding Andrew Bolt.

I beg to differ.

All one has to do is Google the man's articles and
his stance on so many topics into which he brings race
consistently into the equation.

The following website is a good place to start:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/media-2/andrew-bolt-is-officially-a-racist/

I from the first post understood Grahams concern, it is unquestionable, some one has to take the blame for comments here.
Unlike Graham, I think Bolt is a lessor human, true!
He like others leaches a living out of half truths and anger.
But I suspect, forgive me if I am wrong, loudmouth like me, knows a basic truth.
Our first Australians are poorly served by blindness.
My story's are true.
Thousands are using our system, without any link to Aboridginality, to take funds they should not, have no right to.
WE, US, enforce failure on our Nations first people.
Our heedless unknowing love to them is hurting them.
226 years ago we came.
That is so very long ago, we still have shanty towns.
Todays new housing development is tomorrows shanty town.
We blame our selves and that is in part true.
While ignore this truth within this mans lie we ignore those we defend.
Noel Pierson if given the job of assistant to the Minister , if heard by all, would fix the problem we have watered and fed for every one of those years.
In the end press is largely against Bolt or for him.
Those who ignore his intentions in that story have no regard for truth.
Those who ignore thousands of whites pretending to be other are not helping these folk.