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

[Freezer]

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

A very good and bias-free explanation of the court ruling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156

 

[Sintiger]

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

I have already pointed out one , now I have to point out two , then it will be 3 .

Even Andrew Bolt said "Everyone makes mistakes and to me they don't seem consequential ".

People should stop trying to defend something that even the perpetrator admits . Disagree with the judgement all you like but noone , not even Andrew Bolt himself , is saying his articles didn't have mistakes of facts . He just doesn't think that they mattered .

 

[jb03]

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.

Fair enough Rob.

A very good and bias-free explanation of the court ruling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156

Interesting arcticle L2R2R. Holmes is a bit of left winger so his view here has merit. Seems that if Bolt had got his facts right he likely still would have lost.

I assume there will be an appeal.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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

Agree. If Bolt could prove that these people were rasied as white Australian's and had chosen to identify as indigenous at a later point to gain some advantage I assume he would have been found guilty. As it was he could not back up his claim.

Also agree with Azza's measured post.

 

[Brodders17]

Fair enough Rob.
Interesting arcticle L2R2R. Holmes is a bit of left winger so his view here has merit. Seems that if Bolt had got his facts right he likely still would have lost.

i think that yes, if bolt had of got his facts right he still may have lost, according to the reports, but it seems holmes is saying if bolt had of got his facts right and had not set out to offend through the use of :"the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides." he would not have lost.

to me it reads the judge found he set out to offend and did.

 

[Giardiasis]

I have already pointed out one , now I have to point out two , then it will be 3 .

Even Andrew Bolt said "Everyone makes mistakes and to me they don't seem consequential ".

People should stop trying to defend something that even the perpetrator admits . Disagree with the judgement all you like but noone , not even Andrew Bolt himself , is saying his articles didn't have mistakes of facts . He just doesn't think that they mattered .

You pointed out an interpreted mistake, nothing explicit. You haven't pointed out anything else. Apparently that justifies taking someone to court over.

 

[Brodders17]

You pointed out an interpreted mistake, nothing explicit. You haven't pointed out anything else. Apparently that justifies taking someone to court over.

as i said in the previous post i think the main reason bolt was taken to court and lost was because of :

"the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides."

bolt set out to offend (in the judge's opinion) and did so.

 

[Sintiger]

You pointed out an interpreted mistake, nothing explicit. You haven't pointed out anything else. Apparently that justifies taking someone to court over.

Wrong .

I pointed out an actual mistake . One that Bolt has not denied , in fact he changed it between his article and his blog . I wonder why ? Because it was wrong that's why . Larissa Behrendt's father was indigenous . He then referred to her as Mein Leibchen . Not even his most ardent supporters could argue that this was not a reference to the fact that he believed her to be ethnically German . Guess what ? He took that out of his blog as well . Call it interpreted if you like but there is no other interpretation . It was pointed and intentional sarcasm to make a point , nothing else it could be.

This is the quote , which I have already posted .

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?"

There is nothing to interpret . Her father was not white , he was indigenous.

 

[evo]

A very good and bias-free explanation of the court ruling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156

That is what you call bias-free explanation?

In my experience bias-free explanations rarely open with a sentence describing the subject of the article as nauseating. ;D

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is un-biased from a biased viewpoint ???

 

[Azza]

A very good and bias-free explanation of the court ruling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/holmes-bolt-bromberg-and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgment/3038156

Interesting article.

A couple of points he makes -

"In other words, if you want the protection of section 18D of the act when writing about race in a way that's likely to offend, you need to be polite, not derisive, calm and moderate rather than provocative and inflammatory, and you must eschew 'gratuitous asides'."

Sounds about right.


"If you did all that, of course, you'd be unlikely to offend anyone in the first place. So there doesn't seem much point in section 18D."

Not so sure about that. People can get upset fairly easily. The interpretation protects the Act against frivolous application.


And you'd also struggle to express your view in a way that would attract readers in a popular newspaper.

If a particular audience aren't going to get worried about an issue unless they can be stirred-up by a bit of race-baiting, then perhaps the issue shouldn't be raised in that venue in the first place.

 

[Giardiasis]

Wrong .

I pointed out an actual mistake . One that Bolt has not denied , in fact he changed it between his article and his blog . I wonder why ? Because it was wrong that's why . Larissa Behrendt's father was indigenous . He then referred to her as Mein Leibchen . Not even his most ardent supporters could argue that this was not a reference to the fact that he believed her to be ethnically German . Guess what ? He took that out of his blog as well . Call it interpreted if you like but there is no other interpretation . It was pointed and intentional sarcasm to make a point , nothing else it could be.

This is the quote , which I have already posted .

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?"

There is nothing to interpret . Her father was not white , he was indigenous.

Oops sorry forgot to mention that whole 1 other one. actually I have mentioned it several times. If you think that is grounds to be taken to court over, then good luck to you.

 

[jb03]

i think that yes, if bolt had of got his facts right he still may have lost, according to the reports, but it seems holmes is saying if bolt had of got his facts right and had not set out to offend through the use of :"the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides." he would not have lost.

to me it reads the judge found he set out to offend and did.

Possibly. I will have to re-read article but I got the impression one of the points was that even if the writer didn't set out to defend but the target is offended, then you may still lose (whereas in defamation cases protection is provided if you are factually correct).

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That is what you call bias-free explanation?

In my experience bias-free explanations rarely open with a sentence describing the subject of the article as nauseating.  ;D

The dissection of the judgement against Bolt was unbiased. The comments on Bolt's protestations may not have been (though FWIW I agree with them).

A description of Bolt elsewhere as an "expert offender" was on the money. While I often disagree with his views, I wouldn't like to see him discouraged from voicing them. He just needed a little reminder of where the line is. But how the judgement will stand up to any legal challenge, I'm not sure.

 

[Sintiger]

Oops sorry forgot to mention that whole 1 other one. actually I have mentioned it several times. If you think that is grounds to be taken to court over, then good luck to you.

If you state that all I did was quote an error of interpretation and not of fact why wouldn't you expect me to correct you on it .

Anyway I guess the judge was just plain wrong when he found for all 9 defendants and referred to Bolt's errors of fact . Also I suppose that Bolt himself must have been deluded when he admitted to his "inconsequential " errors in his articles .

My mistake .

 

[Giardiasis]

If you state that all I did was quote an error of interpretation and not of fact why wouldn't you expect me to correct you on it .

Anyway I guess the judge was just plain wrong when he found for all 9 defendants and referred to Bolt's errors of fact . Also I suppose that Bolt himself must have been deluded when he admitted to his "inconsequential " errors in his articles .

My mistake .

I'm not suggesting the judge was wrong, I'm suggesting the law is wrong.

 

[Sintiger]

I'm not suggesting the judge was wrong, I'm suggesting the law is wrong.

You may or may not agree with the law but there is no doubt what the judge thought about Andrew Bolt's journalistic standards in these articles and his attention to getting all the facts presented and correct .

"It would have been highly inconvenient to the case for which Mr Bolt was arguing for him to have set out facts demonstrating that the individuals whom he wrote about had been raised with an Aboriginal identity and enculturated as Aboriginal people.

"Those facts would have substantially undermined both the assertion that the individuals had made a choice to identify as Aboriginal and that they were not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely so identifying. The way in which the newspaper articles emphasised the non-Aboriginal ancestry of each person serves to confirm my view. That view is further confirmed by factual errors made which served to belittle the Aboriginal connection of a number of the individuals dealt with, in circumstances where Mr Bolt failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the error in question."

I strongly believe that Andrew Bolt has and had the right to argue the point he was trying to make even if I do not agree with his point of view. What i would not like to see is a change to the law that allows Journalist's to be so loose with the facts in cases where harm can be caused because if that happens we won't have freedom of speech , we will have freedom from the truth .

 

[Giardiasis]

So loose with the facts? Sheesh he got one father wrong and everybody trippin'. The 9 people involved seem more upset with his tone than his misrepresentation of a few choice "facts".

 

[mld]

Interesting piece by Brandis on the Racial Discrimination Act amendment. It begs the question why the coalition didn't find time in 11 years, or use its control of both houses, to correct the percieved flaws in the amendment.