http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/andrew-bolt-x-racial-vilification-court-case/comments-e6frg996-1226148919092
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you. [Merged]
- Thread starter Giardiasis
- Start date
Tony Braxton-Hicks
There are no stupid ideas, just stupid people
Re: The future of PRE
Andrew Bolt's been found guilty of racial discrimination in the case about his columns arguing that fair-skinned aborigines take advantage of their heritage:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bolt-guilty-of-race-discrimination-20110928-1kw8c.html
Whatever you think of Bolt or those columns, this judgement could have wider consequences than race.
While the judgement specifically refers to the Racial Discrimination Act, I wonder if issues other than racism, as being discussed in this thread, could likewise come under scrutiny.
There was that case of the cafe waitress who committed suicide after workplace bullying, leading to substantial fines for her workmates.
Cyberbullying, as can occur here, may well fall under the same laws that these tools were convicted under. Likewise racist remarks about players would be judges in the same light as Bolt.
If PRE has some legal eagles lurking it would be informative to get some insights from them.
Andrew Bolt's been found guilty of racial discrimination in the case about his columns arguing that fair-skinned aborigines take advantage of their heritage:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bolt-guilty-of-race-discrimination-20110928-1kw8c.html
Whatever you think of Bolt or those columns, this judgement could have wider consequences than race.
While the judgement specifically refers to the Racial Discrimination Act, I wonder if issues other than racism, as being discussed in this thread, could likewise come under scrutiny.
There was that case of the cafe waitress who committed suicide after workplace bullying, leading to substantial fines for her workmates.
Cyberbullying, as can occur here, may well fall under the same laws that these tools were convicted under. Likewise racist remarks about players would be judges in the same light as Bolt.
If PRE has some legal eagles lurking it would be informative to get some insights from them.
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
What difference does that make?Tigers of Old said:
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
Makes me feel better saying it. The guy is a tosser and it's my right to say so.
As if this is end of free speech. Talk about being melodramatic.
Giardiasis said:
Makes me feel better saying it. The guy is a tosser and it's my right to say so.
As if this is end of free speech. Talk about being melodramatic.
Re: The future of PRE
http://anitaheissblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-statement-on-todays-in-in-federal.html?spref=tw
This is the response by one of the plaintiffs
MEDIA RELEASE:
ANITA HEISS’ STATEMENT ON EATOCK VS HWT
I published my first piece of journalism in 1992. It was a story about the Aboriginal Housing Company in Redfern. In the last twenty years, I have used my skills across publishing mediums and literary genres to write positive stories about Aboriginal Australia with the aim of building bridges between black and white communities.
On April 15, 2009, with a flick of his pen, Andrew Bolt in his article ‘It’s so hip to be black,’ managed to burn down many of those bridges, by writing words about me (and others) that discredited me professionally, while also offending, insulting and humiliating me. People on his blog also made racist remarks, that also offended, insulted and humiliated me.
I have always identified and lived as an Aboriginal woman, I’m a Williams from Cowra, a proud member of the Wiradjuri nation.
Mr Bolt’s article suggests I made a ‘decision to be Aboriginal…’ which ‘was lucky, given how it's helped her career’ and that I had ‘won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University's Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies’.
What Mr Bolt failed to mention is that I am an established writer and highly qualified with a PhD in Media and Communication, and that in fact none of the jobs he mentioned were actually ‘reserved’ or identified Aboriginal positions, and the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.
In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued.
As former Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee Member of the Australian Society of Authors, I have long advocated and been part of campaigns to protect the rights of Australian authors. At the same time, I have always advocated for responsibility in writing, and an ethical approach to publishing.
I am pleased (although not surprised) with the judgment handed down today by Justice Bromberg in the Federal Court of Australia. I believe the result means that Australia will have a higher quality and more responsible media, and that to some degree the persecution of Aboriginal people in the press will be lessened. And that was why I chose to be part of this case. Australian readers also deserve better.
I thank my legal team: barristers Ron Merkel QC, Herman Borenstein SC, Claire Harris, and Phoebe Knowles, my solicitors Joel Zyngier and Nathalie Dalpethado (Holding Redlich) and Aislinn Martin (Tarwirri). I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude for their tireless efforts in seeking justice for not only the named applicants but all those Aboriginal people who were reasonably likely to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by Mr Bolt’s writings.
I am continuing to focus on what I love doing most, working with young Aboriginal people around the country and teaching them how to write their own stories, in the hope they too will one day have the position of privilege to publish their own words.
Finally, in the words of Dr Rosie Scott, award-winning author, former Chair of the ASA and former Vice-President of PEN Sydney – an organisation who fights for the rights of imprisoned writers who don’t have the ‘free speech’ we so readily enjoy:
‘Free speech is the cornerstone of genuine democracy, but when writers publish disinformation dressed up as fact, lies as truth, slander as objective evaluation and call it free speech, they are devaluing its very essence and betraying all those who've fought for it.’
Dr Anita Heiss (www.anitaheiss.com) is the author of adult fiction, historical fiction, children’s fiction, non-fiction and social commentary. Her latest novel is Paris Dreaming (Random House, 2011).
-END-
Anita is not making any further comments on this issue however enquiries related to her work can be directed to Shannon Lane at Random House on: 02 8923 9804 / email:
[email protected]
http://anitaheissblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-statement-on-todays-in-in-federal.html?spref=tw
This is the response by one of the plaintiffs
MEDIA RELEASE:
ANITA HEISS’ STATEMENT ON EATOCK VS HWT
I published my first piece of journalism in 1992. It was a story about the Aboriginal Housing Company in Redfern. In the last twenty years, I have used my skills across publishing mediums and literary genres to write positive stories about Aboriginal Australia with the aim of building bridges between black and white communities.
On April 15, 2009, with a flick of his pen, Andrew Bolt in his article ‘It’s so hip to be black,’ managed to burn down many of those bridges, by writing words about me (and others) that discredited me professionally, while also offending, insulting and humiliating me. People on his blog also made racist remarks, that also offended, insulted and humiliated me.
I have always identified and lived as an Aboriginal woman, I’m a Williams from Cowra, a proud member of the Wiradjuri nation.
Mr Bolt’s article suggests I made a ‘decision to be Aboriginal…’ which ‘was lucky, given how it's helped her career’ and that I had ‘won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University's Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies’.
What Mr Bolt failed to mention is that I am an established writer and highly qualified with a PhD in Media and Communication, and that in fact none of the jobs he mentioned were actually ‘reserved’ or identified Aboriginal positions, and the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.
In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued.
As former Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee Member of the Australian Society of Authors, I have long advocated and been part of campaigns to protect the rights of Australian authors. At the same time, I have always advocated for responsibility in writing, and an ethical approach to publishing.
I am pleased (although not surprised) with the judgment handed down today by Justice Bromberg in the Federal Court of Australia. I believe the result means that Australia will have a higher quality and more responsible media, and that to some degree the persecution of Aboriginal people in the press will be lessened. And that was why I chose to be part of this case. Australian readers also deserve better.
I thank my legal team: barristers Ron Merkel QC, Herman Borenstein SC, Claire Harris, and Phoebe Knowles, my solicitors Joel Zyngier and Nathalie Dalpethado (Holding Redlich) and Aislinn Martin (Tarwirri). I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude for their tireless efforts in seeking justice for not only the named applicants but all those Aboriginal people who were reasonably likely to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by Mr Bolt’s writings.
I am continuing to focus on what I love doing most, working with young Aboriginal people around the country and teaching them how to write their own stories, in the hope they too will one day have the position of privilege to publish their own words.
Finally, in the words of Dr Rosie Scott, award-winning author, former Chair of the ASA and former Vice-President of PEN Sydney – an organisation who fights for the rights of imprisoned writers who don’t have the ‘free speech’ we so readily enjoy:
‘Free speech is the cornerstone of genuine democracy, but when writers publish disinformation dressed up as fact, lies as truth, slander as objective evaluation and call it free speech, they are devaluing its very essence and betraying all those who've fought for it.’
Dr Anita Heiss (www.anitaheiss.com) is the author of adult fiction, historical fiction, children’s fiction, non-fiction and social commentary. Her latest novel is Paris Dreaming (Random House, 2011).
-END-
Anita is not making any further comments on this issue however enquiries related to her work can be directed to Shannon Lane at Random House on: 02 8923 9804 / email:
[email protected]
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
If it only it was goodbye to inaccurate offensive journalism......
If it only it was goodbye to inaccurate offensive journalism......
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.*
*Except if you suggest Richmond merge or re-locate, we trade Cotchin or Martin or paint Carlton in a positive light, then I'll ask the mods to ban you.
Tigers of Old said:
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.*
*Except if you suggest Richmond merge or re-locate, we trade Cotchin or Martin or paint Carlton in a positive light, then I'll ask the mods to ban you.
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
You're right, it does make you feel better.
You either have free speech, or you don't.
Ok then, I think you are a tosser.Tigers of Old said:
You're right, it does make you feel better.
You either have free speech, or you don't.
Re: The future of PRE
Wonder if the same applies to vilifying umpires? The AFL may have to write to you to tone it back to fulfil their duty of care responsibilities. ;D
Have we killed censorship only to become too frightened to speak out anyway?
Tony Braxton-Hicks said:
Wonder if the same applies to vilifying umpires? The AFL may have to write to you to tone it back to fulfil their duty of care responsibilities. ;D
Have we killed censorship only to become too frightened to speak out anyway?
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
You don't. The press are held accountable every day for what they say.
To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.
There are rules re what you can say can & can't say everywhere, even on this forum.
Giardiasis said:
You don't. The press are held accountable every day for what they say.
To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.
There are rules re what you can say can & can't say everywhere, even on this forum.
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
Australia has never had free speech. We have no guarantee of it in the constitution or in state law. We have very strong anti-defamation laws which mean we can say jack *smile* about anyone, should they choose to sue us.
On this issue i tend to agree though, even shock jocks/journos like Bolter should be able to say what they like.
Australia has never had free speech. We have no guarantee of it in the constitution or in state law. We have very strong anti-defamation laws which mean we can say jack *smile* about anyone, should they choose to sue us.
On this issue i tend to agree though, even shock jocks/journos like Bolter should be able to say what they like.
Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.
Actually, it's more about perceptions. You can be sued for defamation if what you say or write:
exposes a person to ridicule, or
lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of members of the community, or
causes people to shun or avoid the person, or
injures the person's professional reputation
Nothing about truth or lies there. It usually gets down to who has the most money to get the best lawyer.
Baloo said:
Actually, it's more about perceptions. You can be sued for defamation if what you say or write:
exposes a person to ridicule, or
lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of members of the community, or
causes people to shun or avoid the person, or
injures the person's professional reputation
Nothing about truth or lies there. It usually gets down to who has the most money to get the best lawyer.
