See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you. [Merged]

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Not sure how many offending articles the court action is in relation to, but this is one of them.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black/

Some people certainly choose to go the other way and more or less disown their indigenous heritage. I suppose the mistake Bolt made was that, in naming names to support the gist of his opinion piece and to lend it some weight, he made assertions about certain individuals that he was unable to prove.

 

[Giardiasis]

thats not what the judge said . This is a quote from the Age article this morning


Bolt on Larissa Behrendt: "She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for 'my people'. But which people are 'yours', exactly, mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white German. And like all the others, Behrendt was raised black. Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has 'identified as Aboriginal since before I can remember'." Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html#ixzz1ZIuLod00

What he wrote was truly offensive . The way he referred to her as "mein leibchen "is a very cynical way of saying she is German , not indigeous , and that she made the choice to be aboriginal for gain . The fact that it isn't true , something that Bolt hasn't even tried to defend , is reprehensible .

So the judge decided Bolt was saying she decided to be Aboriginal for gain, regardless of the fact that he said, "I'm not saying any of those I've named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don't accuse them of opportunism, even if full-blood Aborigines may wonder how such fair people can claim to be one of them and take black jobs."

He offended some people, and now we learn he under law is not allowed to do that. You might not agree with what the man has said, but surely you can see the implications this has for people considering discussing racial identification?

 

[Sintiger]

So the judge decided Bolt was saying she decided to be Aboriginal for gain, regardless of the fact that he said, "I'm not saying any of those I've named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don't accuse them of opportunism, even if full-blood Aborigines may wonder how such fair people can claim to be one of them and take black jobs."

He offended some people, and now we learn he under law is not allowed to do that. You might not agree with what the man has said, but surely you can see the implications this has for people considering discussing racial identification?

Come on please .
He is not allowed to offend people when his facts are wrong , neither am I , nor are you . I'm glad we have that law , it makes people accountable .
His disclaimer was a clumsy attempt to protect himself . Its like me saying Joe Blow is a fool , but I am certainly not saying he is a fool .
Surely you can see the implications of allowing such inaccuracies in the name of free speech ?
As I have said I am glad we have the right for people like Andrew Bolt to have his say . I disagree with almost everything he says but i will defend his right to say it to anyone and i read his opinions . It's one of the things that makes our country great . What i will not defend is the right of someone to cause harm to people when their facts are wrong and I certainly will not defend the right to do that just because that person happens to say they didn't really mean to cause harm . Bolt has missed the point . This is not about allowing free speech , it is about the right of people to be protected from unfettered free speech . The only implication in this for Andrew Bolt is that he needs to get his facts right .

 

[Azza]

I dislike Bolt intensely. He's an offensive dog whistler who encourages the mean-spirited, socially destructive element in Australian polity, and this case is no different. The errors of fact in his writings should be treated as defamation and he should have been made to retract them. BUT I tend to agree with the Australian article when it says this -

"It is obvious that once grants or positions are offered on the basis of race, then the racial profile of recipients becomes a legitimate issue. So whether or not people agree with Bolt's view, any reasonable person would deem this topic worthy of examination, even if it is always likely to be sensitive. On this point, Justice Bromberg agreed: "That the matters . . . were matters of public interest was not contested." "

The whys and wherefores of any legislation that discriminates between people in Australia shouldn't be a sacred cow not open to debate. Bolts rhetoric dealt with the subject in his usual offensive and superficial manner, but it did introduce issues of racial and cultural identity in Australia, and the place of Aboriginal people.

 

[Tiny S Tiger]

Like all of us in the community he can say what he wants, but he has to be held accountable if someone takes him to task.

 

[Brodders17]

Not sure how many offending articles the court action is in relation to, but this is one of them.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black/

Some people certainly choose to go the other way and more or less disown their indigenous heritage. I suppose the mistake Bolt made was that, in naming names to support the gist of his opinion piece and to lend it some weight, he made assertions about certain individuals that he was unable to prove.

he did not make assertions he was unable to prove. he wrote things that are factually wrong. there is a difference.

 

[Giardiasis]

Come on please .
He is not allowed to offend people when his facts are wrong , neither am I , nor are you . I'm glad we have that law , it makes people accountable .
His disclaimer was a clumsy attempt to protect himself . Its like me saying Joe Blow is a fool , but I am certainly not saying he is a fool .
Surely you can see the implications of allowing such inaccuracies in the name of free speech ?
As I have said I am glad we have the right for people like Andrew Bolt to have his say . I disagree with almost everything he says but i will defend his right to say it to anyone and i read his opinions . It's one of the things that makes our country great . What i will not defend is the right of someone to cause harm to people when their facts are wrong and I certainly will not defend the right to do that just because that person happens to say they didn't really mean to cause harm . Bolt has missed the point . This is not about allowing free speech , it is about the right of people to be protected from unfettered free speech . The only implication in this for Andrew Bolt is that he needs to get his facts right .

I'll ask again what are the facts that he got wrong? He got LB's dad wrong, is that it?

 

[Sintiger]

I'll ask again what are the facts that he got wrong? He got LB's dad wrong, is that it?

You asked what he got wrong . I point out one and now you say what else . One is not enough , how many is enough 2 , 3 , 4 ? One would have been enough for the judgement to go against him .
I agree with the post by Azza . I have no problem with him discussing this issue . Its a legitimate issue to be in the public forum .
If you want to know all his mistakes I suggest you read the 135 page judgement , I am sure you will find them in there .

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

he did not make assertions he was unable to prove. he wrote things that are factually wrong. there is a difference.

Was that the central issue? Or was it his assertion/implication/suggestion that those he named had hopped aboard the government gravy train for the purpose of furthering their careers?

 

[Giardiasis]

You asked what he got wrong . I point out one and now you say what else . One is not enough , how many is enough 2 , 3 , 4 ? One would have been enough for the judgement to go against him .
I agree with the post by Azza . I have no problem with him discussing this issue . Its a legitimate issue to be in the public forum .
If you want to know all his mistakes I suggest you read the 135 page judgement , I am sure you will find them in there .

And I showed that he did not say that these people decided to become Aboriginal because they got perks. It was simply a judge deciding he understood his intentions. It seems the only thing he got wrong was LB's dad. Call me nuts, but I see that as a fairly silly reason to silence the man. If that's the law, then I for one think it needs changing.

Geez if it is against the law for journalists to make factual errors, we wouldn't have many newspapers left.

 

[mk33]

Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.

Hard to imagine a Federal Court judge emerging from 1980's St.Kilda, but the odds would have to be short.

It is according to wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordy_Bromberg

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: See you later free speech, it was nice knowing you.

It is according to wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordy_Bromberg

Ta. Bet he got rid of that facial hair after the Yorkshire Ripper's arrest.

 

[Sintiger]

And I showed that he did not say that these people decided to become Aboriginal because they got perks. It was simply a judge deciding he understood his intentions. It seems the only thing he got wrong was LB's dad. Call me nuts, but I see that as a fairly silly reason to silence the man. If that's the law, then I for one think it needs changing.

Geez if it is against the law for journalists to make factual errors, we wouldn't have many newspapers left.

All the 9 people asked for in the first place was a retraction of the incorrect facts used . It was refused . When journalists make mistakes with facts they often give retractions , and so they should .
You didn't show that he did not say that these people decided to become aboriginal for the perks at all . You decided that his disclaimer was proof of that . What do you think "mein Leibchen " was meant to mean , that he just decided to put some random German phrase in the middle of his article ? He was saying that she is really German and trying to protect himself by making it an implication rather than explicit . That's what the judge decided and he decided that any reasonable person would believe the same .
The judge also decided he did the same for the other 8 as well .
I am not going to look through pages of articles and judgements to find the other errors . Its not worth the time and effort .
Free speech is alive and well in this country , just look at the front page of the Herald Sun and you will see those rights at work where a person can question the judgement that was made in a court freely and openly .

 

[Giardiasis]

Ok, I agree that the judge decided Bolt was implying something rather than explicitly stating so. I'm unsure as to what part of that he is supposed to retract from when he explicitly stated he wasn't implying that very something. Like I said, if that is the law, then it should be changed.

 

[Sintiger]

Ok, I agree that the judge decided Bolt was implying something rather than explicitly stating so. I'm unsure as to what part of that he is supposed to retract from when he explicitly stated he wasn't implying that very something. Like I said, if that is the law, then it should be changed.

Let's just agree to disagree . I need to get some work done .

 

[IanG]

I'll ask again what are the facts that he got wrong? He got LB's dad wrong, is that it?

You've got plenty of feedback on this point, covering your ears and saying "I can't hear you" aint going to cut it. Bolt has been doing the same thing for years on a range of subjects, I'm glad he's finally faced action for it.

 

[Giardiasis]

You've got plenty of feedback on this point, covering your ears and saying "I can't hear you" aint going to cut it. Bolt has been doing the same thing for years on a range of subjects, I'm glad he's finally faced action for it.

No I really haven't.

 

[ssstone]

he did not make assertions he was unable to prove. he wrote things that are factually wrong. there is a difference.

and these things factually wrong ARE???

 

[ssstone]

You asked what he got wrong . I point out one and now you say what else . One is not enough , how many is enough 2 , 3 , 4 ? One would have been enough for the judgement to go against him .
I agree with the post by Azza . I have no problem with him discussing this issue . Its a legitimate issue to be in the public forum .
If you want to know all his mistakes I suggest you read the 135 page judgement , I am sure you will find them in there .

of course you have read it? tell us what his " MISTAKES" were?

 

[Tiger Rob]

The issue that the main stream media and joe public seems to have missed here, and IMO is the most important part of this whole debate is....

1. The case against Bolt was decided one the basis it was "reasonably likley" that "some" people would be offended by what he wrote.
2. If what Bolt wrote was utter garbage and completely without fact, there would have been a slander case against him. There is no slander case.

That is why there is a real danger to free speach. If what you write or say is "reasonably likely" to offend "some" people you can end up in court. How many who post here would be in court under those rules?

This along with the proposed federal govenrment enquiry into licensing the media - including blogs mind you - is a real danger to freedom of speech and ultimately democracy as we know it. If the media in all forms (including blogs) are subject to direct government regulation (read - power to shut you down if they disagree with you) and you can be sued for maybe/sorta offending someone (read - don't write anything the government doesn't want you to) we will in effect be North Korea mark II.

That scares the hell out of me and it should scare the hell out of you too.