The ABC's Media Watch and a number of contributors to The Drum defended Andrew Bolt and didn't imagine that he would be convicted. On top of that the reasons for the decision seemed to have come out of the blue, and the controversy continues.

Section 18C is the problem and it needs to be deleted. How can anyone obey a law where its interpretation is not obvious and obtainable from a normal reading by so many journalists, lawyers and by ordinary folk as well? Or is the intent that people should be self-censoring because at any moment their thoughts and intent could be construed negatively by others?

The controversy continues.

Here's a transcript from Media Watch, Monday 17th March, 2014:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3965544.htm

And another link that also may be of interest on this issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3071066.html

cont'd ...

The author of the second link that I gave points out -
The tone of Mr Bolt's columns were nasty and demeaned
the people he was writing about.

We're told that -
"editora, news directors, executive producers of
current affairs and news programs, all decide the limits of
free speech all the time, and they do so not merely on the
basis of what's legally safe, often decisions are made
on gut feelings, on their understanding of their readership
or their audience, or the history and traditions of the
organisation that they're fortunate to run for a period of
time..."

The author notes however that the blogosphere is
a place where "mad people and sane people, people consumed
with hatred and bile, and people who want only to
serve the public good, and all those in between, feel they have
a licence to say anything and damn the consequences."
That of course is part and parcel of cyber space - however
reputable news sources have a higher standard of reporting to
maintain.

And in the case of Mr Bolt - he needs to be reminded
that - free speech is not an unfettered
right. And as the author confirms - It doesn't have to be
balanced or fair - but it should be factually accurate.
Therefore what has to be decided in our society before we get rid
of any of our laws is -
what is acceptable speech and what isn't in the public
sphere.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is (and should be) limited by the rights of others.
Most democratic countries have four major restrictions on
free expression. Laws covering libel and slander, public
decency, urging violence, and hate speech.

And that is as it should be.

Hi Foxy,

Most Indigenous people would have known just what Andrew Bolt was getting at, the Johnny-come-latelies who hop in and claim prizes etc. that are clearly intended for Indigenous people who have genuinely and very likely suffered discrimination and the hindering of their careers by virtue of being, usually obviously, Indigenous. And even more so, by many people who may not have the slightest Indigenous ancestry, by the way.

In my experience, working in an Indigenous student support program at a university, it was not uncommon - given the slightly relaxed entry requirements at the time for Indigenous applicants - for people to apply who did not have any Indigenous ancestry. I remember one bloke (who turned out to have Calabrese and Austrian parents) who hummed and ha'ed about where his mother was from - a sure give-away - and who never returned when I gave him a Family tree form to fill out. He later got into another program, became their 'Aboriginal Scholar of the Year' and took up a key position in Canberra.

My wife worked in a similar program on another campus had many times had the same issue. One students threatened to take her to court if she kept asking. That student is now in an important position. No more to say.

The one aspect that worries me is about any repeal is an implied right to humiliate: how to keep a prohibition on that is going to be a problem if the section is removed. Humiliation can be insidious, implied, and very damaging.

But the right to offend and insult ? No worries. There are already many laws which keep that within bounds - no right to incite, or to intimidate or to urge violence. So that bit's fine with me.

Love,

Joe

To limit speech is to limit thought
Any half rational person knows the limitation of speech is no more than a matter of etiquette. Australian foreign policy is inspired by racism towards Muslim fanatics. We would never have supported an invasion of Ireland because of the IRA. Nor did we ever contemplate an invasion of apartheid South Africa but had no issue invading A Muslim Iraq.

The restrictions we place on free speech are never about reality their about us feeling good about ourselves. Thus we may temper what we say and say and think what we always thought and said amongst ourselves. The once overt sexism in the corporate world remains as healthy as ever because it is an essentially adolescent male culture. The suits have just learnt how feign maturity as adolescent always have during a church service.

You can't change people's hearts with prefecture. Legislating speech merely creates the outward semblance of propriety and the resentment it engenders prevents any change. So now the racist, the sexist, the egotist is merely more hidden and more entrenched. Where once he was free to express his immaturity and could be recognised and confronted and some change was possible. Today, he hides amongst the like minded, the beliefs and prejudices entrenched and the entire society becomes stagnant.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't have anything further to add to this discussion.
I've said what I wanted to say. In Andrew Bolt's case -
his columns were downright nasty and did demean the people
he was writing about. He also got his facts wrong and deserved
the verdict that he got from the judge. He trifled with the
facts and as I stated earlier free speech is not unfettered
right. It doesn't have to be balanced or fair but it should
be factually accurate. It's interesting though that Andrew
Bolt can dish it out but he can't take it. As one author
tells us - Bolt recently demanded an
apology and got it. The people he demeaned earlier
had to go to court to get theirs.