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

[Joe Lynn Turnip]

Not much difference between Birmingham and Bolt IMO. Idealogues of all stripes only support "free speech" when it fits in with their own political sensibilities. He's no different.

 

[year of the tiger]

Phew! I disagree with Birmingham on one point at least. I think Bolt is an extremely clever dog-whistling writer. His popularity speaks for itself. He's crossed a line in this instance and got a rap on the knuckles for it, but he's turning it all to his advantage anyway.

Thanks Sting... interesting read even if it is old news

Agree with AZ - to think Bolt is naive is naive in itself in my view - he knows exactly what he is doing and is loving it. Interesting to see what his next move is.

 

[IanG]

For further insights into the character of Bolt:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bolt-from-the-past-a-heartfelt-history-lesson-to-the-man-i-loved-20111021-1mcio.html

 

[tigersnake]

Nice dirge by JB, very nice. Bang on, my thoughts exactly. I was discussing the case with a social justice lawyer friend and we agreed, what Bolt wrote was shabby, vindictive, petty, racist, spiteful and, as always, full of lies and half-truths. But he shouldn't have been sued for it. Although philosophically I don't think he should have been sued, I can see why he was. Bolt is constantly exposed for his shabby work, but he just ignores it and carries on regardless knowing that his audience don't read any in-depth analysis. So from that angle, I can see that if I was the one slandered, what else could they have done?

As for the thread title, as others have said, gross overstatement as is the stock-in-trade of the far right (native title will mean blackfellas will take our backyards, we'll all be eating dogfood under a carbon tax etc etc). But still, I take the point.

 

[AngryAnt]

Nice dirge by JB, very nice. Bang on, my thoughts exactly. I was discussing the case with a social justice lawyer friend and we agreed, what Bolt wrote was shabby, vindictive, petty, racist, spiteful and, as always, full of lies and half-truths. But he shouldn't have been sued for it. Although philosophically I don't think he should have been sued, I can see why he was. Bolt is constantly exposed for his shabby work, but he just ignores it and carries on regardless knowing that his audience don't read any in-depth analysis. So from that angle, I can see that if I was the one slandered, what else could they have done?

As for the thread title, as others have said, gross overstatement as is the stock-in-trade of the far right (native title will mean blackfellas will take our backyards, we'll all be eating dogfood under a carbon tax etc etc). But still, I take the point.

He wasn't sued.

 

[tigersnake]

charged then. It gives a destructive or negative force on society more oxygen, when he already had too much.

 

[AngryAnt]

charged then. It gives a destructive or negative force on society more oxygen, when he already had too much.

What- that he was taken to court?

 

[Sintiger]

For further insights into the character of Bolt:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bolt-from-the-past-a-heartfelt-history-lesson-to-the-man-i-loved-20111021-1mcio.html

leaving aside what people may think of his views this is seriously strange behaviour .

 

[Azza]

Assange going in to bat for Bolt now, and making some good points too. Strange bedfellows indeed!

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/play-ball-not-bolt-in-free-speech-debate-20111027-1mm4h.html

 

[Tigers of Old]

Murdoch press a 'threat to Democracy'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-03/cameron-launches-attack-on-news-ltd/3616902