This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Bolt Report

Jump to new
Wayne, that applies to all journalists.

His freedom of speech wasnt the problem, it was the way it was said, and the Judge has said that, but of course he wont admit that but goes off in another direction, causing more division, saying that he wants unity.
 
McLovin said:
I think you'd probably offend the Irish more by referring to them as Anglo-Saxon than by telling a few Irish jokes.
Click to expand...

So we just laugh it off yet others are "Outraged at this scandalous slur"

Why don't they just laugh it off ?

If we went to court about an irish joke would we win ?
 
macca said:
If we went to court about an irish joke would we win ?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you can prove 1) That the act of telling the joke was reasonably likely to insult, offend or humiliate and 2) It is done because of the race, colour or (as in this case) ethnic origin of the other person or group.

All of this also needs to be done in a public place too.

Personally I think you'd struggle to prove (1) in most instances by telling an Irish joke, unless there was a culture (such as in a workplace) of making derogatory comments about the Irish.
 
Kiwi's must have a case by now heard one on tv the other night
 
Macquack said:
What a laugh, Bolt must have forgotten what he was in court for.
Click to expand...

We all know why Bolt was in court. It was because the left were out to get him, and allegations of racial vilification, no matter how flimsy, stand a better chance of succeeding in the Federal court than libel or defamation.
 

So you can say anything you like, so long as it's said in a certain way?

Rot!

We all know we have an activist judiciary in Aus and NZ; and people of the left are curiously silent about left wing journalistic outrages.

As to the judgement. I am one eighth Teutonic, but the rest is Anglo Saxon. Supposing I identified as a German and someone said... actually you are more of a Pom, ethnically.

Have I been racially vilified? No! Preposterous!

This is tantamount to what has happened here.

Whether Bolt is exactly accurate or wise is a different matter entirely, but to deal with this under racial vilification statutes is an outrage and truly a blight on our purported liberty.

You cannot seriously accuse
 
wayneL said:
As to the judgement. I am one eighth Teutonic, but the rest is Anglo Saxon. Supposing I identified as a German and someone said... actually you are more of a Pom, ethnically.
Click to expand...

Actually the Angles and the Saxons were German tribes so maybe you could argue it. :


wayneL said:
Whether Bolt is exactly accurate or wise is a different matter entirely, but to deal with this under racial vilification statutes is an outrage and truly a blight on our purported liberty.
Click to expand...


I have been away so am coming fresh to this.

In my view Wayne's statement above is the salient point.

Bolt should be in trouble for getting his facts wrong (as he often does) however it should have been dealt with using other laws such as defamation (which are over strong in this country and would have easily succeeded).

By using the racial vilification law, they have succeeded in strengthening it, which was the plan of the left. This has affected free speech to our detriment.

The law can now be expanded to take in sexual,religous or any other vilification they can think of. I hope this goes to the High Court because this law is wrong.

...and Bolt should start thinking with the whole of his brain and start doing some research before he types his gutter column.
 
Plenty of smoke and mirrors going on here simple fact is Bolts articles were shockers from any journalistic point some thing that has been covered though the press.

This point alone casts doubt on much of Bolts contentious views particularly his loose use of facts which during the trial his defense didn't not try to defend.

As for the freedom of speech ex editor of The Age Michael Gawenda makes the obvious point


Bolt's offence was an offence against journalism and really, should not have been judged by a judge under the Racial Discrimination Act.
Click to expand...

Bolt committed the offense of producing bad and shoddy journalism. His editors should have saved him from himself. They should apologise for having failed to do so.
Click to expand...

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

While I'm inclined to agree that what happened was nothing more than sloppy editorial and factual inaccuracies, I don't see how the judge in applying s18C could have found any other way. It has nothing to do with an activist judiciary, when that canard gets tossed around it sounds like blaming the ref for losing the match.
 

from that article

 
wayneL said:
Did you read the judgement?
Click to expand...

Yes. How does the judgement go against s18C? That section was left deliberately broad during its drafting that the threshold for what constitutes a breach of it is fairly low.
 
McLovin said:
Yes. How does the judgement go against s18C? That section was left deliberately broad during its drafting that the threshold for what constitutes a breach of it is fairly low.
Click to expand...

Broad enough to allow/encourage judicial activism?

Broad enough to allow almost anything to be interpreted as racial vilification?

Come on McL, when the judge starts giving personal opinions and that forms the basis of judgement, it's activist.
 
wayneL said:
Broad enough to allow/encourage judicial activism?
Click to expand...

Sure it is, but I don't see it in this case. It seems fairly straightforward application of the legislation, which he didn't draft. Judicial activism generally means when the courts try to "legislate from the Bench" it's hard to accuse this decision of doing that. The Parliament left the legislation broad.

wayneL said:
Broad enough to allow almost anything to be interpreted as racial vilification?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And I think it's far too overreaching for that reason, but like I said it wasn't drafted by the Judiciary.

It also raises the question of where is the line drawn between "public interest" or political speech (the former which is dealt with in s18D and the latter is an implied right in the Constitution) and racial discrimination.

wayneL said:
Come on McL, when the judge starts giving personal opinions and that forms the basis of judgement, it's activist.
Click to expand...

From what I read he used the ordinary person test not his own personal opinion. Does it not seem reasonably likely that a fair skinned aboriginal would be offended, insulted or humiliated at being accused of identifying as aboriginal for no other reason than good career opportunities?
 

Well it would be a matter of opinion as to what ordinary people might think; and what truly constitutes an aboriginal, if fair skinned as per my analogy above.

These people wouldn't be the first to claim x for career opportunities. Were they truly offended, embarrassed that a valid point was made, or expediently feigned offense for political purposes?

Taking offense has become an industry in Australia, convened by dystopian bureaucrats, leftist apparatchiks and blindly supported by their tribal (in the political sense) acolytes.

This law is Orwellian in nature, it's a bad law and should be repealed.

If it is so broad, the judge equally could have equally given the benefit of the doubt.
 
I've never read Andrew Bolt's article that's the subject of this thread.
Does anyone have a link to it?
 
wayneL said:
Well it would be a matter of opinion as to what ordinary people might think; and what truly constitutes an aboriginal, if fair skinned as per my analogy above.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a matter of opinion, any decision delivered by a judge is an opinion. When you have a full bench you even get concurring and dissenting "opinions".

wayneL said:
These people wouldn't be the first to claim x for career opportunities. Were they truly offended, embarrassed that a valid point was made, or expediently feigned offense for political purposes?
Click to expand...

So then he should have proven it, no case to answer then. The test is whether the act (articles) would reasonably cause offence to a person from that group. By making sweeping statements he left himself open to this sort of case. His factual inaccuracies were really just the cherry on top.

wayneL said:
If it is so broad, the judge equally could have equally given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

It's broadly biased toward the person bringing the complaint (which I disagree with), as I said in my last post. To have ignored the legislation and "given the benefit of the doubt" would have been a far more obvious case of judicial activism. Like I said the phrase "judicial activism" is used far too often for "I don't like the judgement".
 
There seems no doubt that Clark's mission was mainly about Bolt. It appears he not easily defamed.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...fter-andrew-bolt/story-fn7x8me2-1226152207508
 
I don't understand why the media is considered a credible source when it comes to racial villification, but it's fine for them to say whatever they want about just about anything else???

I don't know anythign about this article(s), but geez... are opinions illegal??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
R
IRAQ: the Big (neo) Con
Replies
1
Views
5K
basilio
The Truth about CPI
Replies
4
Views
5K
BREND
B
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
'Hedge Fund' Blowout Threatens World Markets
Replies
12
Views
9K
scsl
S
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...