Racial Discrimination Act

[Geelong_Sicko]

I'm not sure why this is being discussed in a thread about Bill Shorten. There is at least one thread dedicated to the Bolt case. For example, I addressed your point here...

It started as an exchange between medusala and CM86 back on page 48. Then CbayT got involved, then I did. Things spiral off into tangents sometimes on internet forums. They might pick up a momentum all their own and snowball a bit.

But you can learn s**t too, which is always to the good.

As for you quoting the other thread;

Not quite. The judge ruled that Bolt said things that were untrue, and the tone of his comments deemed that they were not an expression of a genuine belief. Hence Section 18d of the RDA did not apply, which says that - Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith.

So Bolt was ruled to have broken the Racial Discrimination Act because of one judge's opinion of whether some factual errors he made were or were not made in good faith. It's a very flakey way of regulating free speech.

The judge ruled that Bolt could not avail himself of the protections offered by the RDA's 18D exemptions. His articles, by way of containing untruths about a named person instead of being mere generalisations, were by definition 'not made in good faith'.

And that's how it should be.

As someone who works in the print media, with a daily readership well into the hundreds of thousands, shouldn't Bolt be held accountable for misleading his audience? Because his targets weren't from the same culture as he, and because he was enquiring into a culture not his own of COURSE he was going to run afoul of at least some part of the RDA.

His concerns were legitimate, so why couldn't he have done his homework, stuck to the facts and, thus armed, aired his concerns then?

The Racial Discrimination Act's exemptions would have been his ally then, as it should be.

His questions were legitimate.

His factual backing (the very ammunition he was firing) was flawed. It wasn't factual. Therefore it was not published in good faith.

 

[CbayT]

But what if the qualifier was "Statement X offended me as an Aboriginal because points Y and Z were factually incorrect"? Offense, to my mind, CAN be taken into account, but only based on qualifiers as it was in the Bolt case.

That misses the point if you believe in free speech then someone is going to be offended. That is to a point how it should be. Under defamation laws simply you have to show
1. That the statement is not true,ridicules or is insulting and that is decided by the court not your feelings; and generally you are named or it is easy to decipher who you are. This by itself is not enough.

2. It must damage you or demean you in the eyes of others.

None of these conditions were met in the Bolt case and that is why they went the 18c route. It may not be apparent who the individuals were, Bolt talked in general. How he described the whiteness of those who identified themselves as aboriginal may neither be untrue or thought of in terms of ridicule, and the untruths in the article may not of any consequence to the claim. Lastly as an individual it would be a challenge to quantify damage caused.

The danger of 18c and 18d is not in the wording but their application. In the bolt case 18 d is of very little relevance and all the individuals had to say was that they were insulted for the court to say under 18c that is true.

A statement like I don't like muslim burkas because they demean women could be pressed under 18c because some women who wears a burka is offended. This is ridiculous, and whilst 18c will be limited because of the cost and lack of money to be gained its a thin edge that should be opposed. If you believe in robust democracy and free speech then you couldn't support 18c in its current form.

Last word oh and Bill is burnt toast.

 

[apparentlydead]

A statement like I don't like muslim burkas because they demean women could be pressed under 18c
.

If this is the case, then why aren't we seeing the courts inundated with outraged people?

Why is the Bolt case the only one of any repute, (that I know of), where 18c was pursued and upheld?

Oh, that's right...because what you're implying here simply isn't the case at all.

Thin edge of the wedge my giddy aunt!

Robust democracy and free speech?...what utter tripe.

Don't make s**t up based on race and then plaster it all over a high circulation newspaper and 18c will never be heard of again.

 

[CbayT]

If this is the case, then why aren't we seeing the courts inundated with outraged people?

Why is the Bolt case the only one of any repute, (that I know of), where 18c was pursued and upheld?

Oh, that's right...because what you're implying here simply isn't the case at all.

Thin edge of the wedge my giddy aunt!

Robust democracy and free speech?...what utter tripe.

Don't make s**t up based on race and then plaster it all over a high circulation newspaper and 18c will never be heard of again.

Against my better judgement

Read the post large cost with no chance of recompense.

All media outlets make allowances to contest actions and intervene in areas that are important to freedom of the press. Most media outlets would not support 18c as it currently stands.

 

[apparentlydead]

Against my better judgement

Read the post large cost with no chance of recompense.

Also against my better judgement, you smug tit.

If that is the case, then what is the issue?

I'm quite sure that Bolt/Murdoch were significantly out of pocket for Andrews 'mistake'.

 

[Power Raid]

If this is the case, then why aren't we seeing the courts inundated with outraged people?

Why is the Bolt case the only one of any repute, (that I know of), where 18c was pursued and upheld?

Oh, that's right...because what you're implying here simply isn't the case at all.

Thin edge of the wedge my giddy aunt!

Robust democracy and free speech?...what utter tripe.

Don't make s**t up based on race and then plaster it all over a high circulation newspaper and 18c will never be heard of again.

again the issue is the legislation and yes lawyers and judges do look at the words. that's how statutes and the facts are debated in courts.

you can use Bolt as a precedent in common law but do you know what precedents came from that case?

 

[Power Raid]

Also against my better judgement, you smug tit.

If that is the case, then what is the issue?

I'm quite sure that Bolt/Murdoch were significantly out of pocket for Andrews 'mistake'.

do you have an anger problem?

 

[apparentlydead]

again the issue is the legislation and yes lawyers and judges do look at the words. that's how statutes and the facts are debated in courts.

you can use Bolt as a precedent in common law but do you know what precedents came from that case?

How about you tell us all.

do you have an anger problem?

No more than the average Joe. However, how you can accuse me of anger from that post is beyond me.

Tell me. Do you have a compulsive lying, and personal embellishment problem?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

None of these conditions were met in the Bolt case and that is why they went the 18c route. It may not be apparent who the individuals were, Bolt talked in general. How he described the whiteness of those who identified themselves as aboriginal may neither be untrue or thought of in terms of ridicule, and the untruths in the article may not of any consequence to the claim. Lastly as an individual it would be a challenge to quantify damage caused.

Andrew Bolt did NOT talk in general, though. He named names and told untruths. A judge pulled him up on it, finding that

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew bolt

353. At common law, fair comment exists as a defence to a defamatory comment in order to facilitate freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The fundamental importance of facilitating freedom of expression has already been explained.

It is of importance that on social and political issues in particular, people should be able to express their opinions. Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides no valid basis for the law to curtail the expression of opinion. The fair comment defence at common law extends to protect opinions, even those that reasonable people would consider to be abhorrent...

354. ...Like all good things, freedom of expression has its limits and that is also recognised by the common law defence of fair comment. Those limits are there to ensure that freedom of expression is not abused. One of the safeguards against such abuse is that the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege. That means that if the facts upon which the comment purports to be founded are not proved to be true or published on a privileged occasion, the defence of fair comment is not available.

In segment 353, Judge Bromberg finds that opinions, however wrong, cannot be curtailed via any legal basis. The presentation of facts however, are a different kettle of fish. There are safeguards against presenting falsehoods as facts and, as such, nobody should have the right to use the print media as a way to promote falsehoods.

The danger of 18c and 18d is not in the wording but their application. In the bolt case 18 d is of very little relevance and all the individuals had to say was that they were insulted for the court to say under 18c that is true.

Untrue. As you can see above, it was 18D that tripped Bolt up. He lost his privilege and protection to comment in the public interest once he presented falsehood as fact. Fair comment was no longer available as a defence.

A statement like I don't like muslim burkas because they demean women could be pressed under 18c because some women who wears a burka is offended. This is ridiculous, and whilst 18c will be limited because of the cost and lack of money to be gained its a thin edge that should be opposed. If you believe in robust democracy and free speech then you couldn't support 18c in its current form.

You'd be offering an opinion. You would be protected. As Judge Bromberg stated

It is of importance that on social and political issues in particular, people should be able to express their opinions. Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides no valid basis for the law to curtail the expression of opinion.

Last word oh and Bill is burnt toast.

Definitely. The man has ZERO charisma. I'm not saying we need to have several levels of style over substance in our political leaders, but Bill Shorten doesn't really inspire me as a future Prime Minister.

 

[medusala]

His questions were legitimate.

His factual backing (the very ammunition he was firing) was flawed. It wasn't factual. Therefore it was not published in good faith.

GS, fair comment would not have been enough.

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

Justice Bromberg ruled, however, that "fair comment" here means the same as it does in defamation law – it has to be based on "facts truly stated".

"Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

Defamation law doesn't require fair comment to be reasonable, as we've seen. It doesn't require it to be 'in good faith'. But the exemptions listed in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, including fair comment, only apply to "anything said or done reasonably and in good faith".

As others have said, what a pity Greg Combet wasn't still around.

And Emerson and Tanner and Ferguson.

Ranks very thin on both sides it would seem.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Defamation law doesn't require fair comment to be reasonable, as we've seen. It doesn't require it to be 'in good faith'. But the exemptions listed in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, including fair comment, only apply to "anything said or done reasonably and in good faith".

It wasn't about defamation though. Look;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew bolt

3. Ms Eatock complains about two newspaper articles written by Mr Andrew Bolt and published by the Second Respondent (“the Herald & Weekly Times”) in the Herald Sun newspaper and on that paper’s online site. She also complains about two blog articles written by Mr Bolt and published by the Herald & Weekly Times on the Herald Sun website.

4. Broadly speaking, the nature of her complaint is that the articles conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that are available to Aboriginal people. Ms Eatock wants the law to address this conduct. She wants declarations and injunctions and an apology from the Herald & Weekly Times. She calls in aid Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (“the Racial Discrimination Act”) which includes sections 18C and 18D. She claims that by their conduct, Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.5.

5. In order to succeed in her claim, Ms Eatock needed to establish that:
a) It was reasonably likely that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct; and
b) that the conduct was done by Mr Bolt and the Herald &Weekly Times, including because of the race, colour or ethnic origin of fair-skinned Aboriginal people.

6. Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times dispute that the messages that Ms Eatock claims were conveyed by the articles, were in fact conveyed. They deny that any offence was reasonably likely to be caused and also that race, colour or ethnic origin had anything to do with Mr Bolt writing the articles or the Herald & Weekly Times publishing them. They also say that - if Ms Eatock should establish those elements which she needs to satisfy the Court about - their conduct should not be rendered unlawful, because it should be exempted or excused. For that purpose, they rely on section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.

7. Section 18D exempts from being unlawful, conduct which has been done reasonably and in good faith for particular specified purposes, including the making of a fair comment in a newspaper. It is a provision which, broadly speaking, seeks to balance the objectives of section 18C with the need to protect justifiable freedom of expression...

Pat Eatock wasn't seeking damages for herself. She saw the Bolt articles as an injustice against fair-skinned Aboriginals because of the untruths they contained. As former ABC MediaWatch presenter Jonathan Holmes states in the article you linked to;

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

Let's suppose for a moment that some or all of Pat Eatock, Larissa Bernhardt, Geoff Clark and the 15 other 'light-skinned Aborigines' named in his columns had sued Andrew Bolt and News Ltd for defamation. It seems to me that most of them could easily argue that they had been defamed. And it seems to me that if Bolt had pleaded the defences of truth and fair comment, he might not have succeeded, because his research was so sloppy. The facts in his articles were not, in legal terms, 'truly stated'.

But let's suppose for a moment that he had been far more diligent than he seems to have been and that the facts he adduced in the columns were substantially accurate; that he got the ancestry and upbringing of the 'fair-skinned Aborigines' that were his targets right; that he accurately described the jobs they had held and the qualifications needed to get them; and so on.

Then, in my view, he should have been able to succeed with a fair comment defence against defamation. The court doesn't have to have liked his opinions, or thought them reasonable, or in any other way approved of them. It's enough that Bolt honestly held the views he outlined, and they are based on true facts.

He's dead right. If Andrew Bolt had done his due diligence, if the copy-editors and whoever else proof-reads and fact-checks Bolt's articles before publication had done their jobs, Bolt would not have been in this mess.

Because she and the other named individuals were from another culture, the RDA route was open to Pat Eatock. Because he's gotten his stated facts wrong about a named individual from another culture, the 18D 'fair comment' defence was not open to Andrew Bolt.

As I noted a few responses ago, opinion is protected. Falsehoods stated as fact are not. When falsehoods are directed against named persons from another culture, it is only logical that the Racial Discrimination Act be looked at for those falsehoods to be measured against.

Andrew Bolt is not Joe Blow on the street. He is a voice in a publication whose daily readership runs well into the hundreds of thousands. Like all in the print media he owes it to his public to, when stating fact, at least get those facts right regardless of his politics.

Beyond his line that Bolt'" should get his facts right" Jonathan Holmes seems to have missed this point entirely.

 

[medusala]

When falsehoods are directed against named persons from another culture, it is only logical that the Racial Discrimination Act be looked at for those falsehoods to be measured against.

No. That is protected by defamation. If that is the only issue then no need for 18c.

That is the point. Even if what he said was true that wouldn't have necessarily saved him. From defamation, yes but 18c no.

" Then, in my view, he should have been able to succeed with a fair comment defence against defamation".

Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

As I noted a few responses ago, opinion is protected.

No. Only if it falls under 18c

Once again see the bold quote above.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No. That is protected by defamation. If that is the only issue then no need for 18c.

That is the point. Even if what he said was true that wouldn't have necessarily saved him. From defamation, yes but 18c no.

" Then, in my view, he should have been able to succeed with a fair comment defence against defamation".

Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

As I understand it, because Pat Eatock ONLY wanted a printed retraction and apology from Andrew Bolt, the easiest route was via the RDA without further litigation.

The Racial Discrimination Act exists in Civil Law, not Criminal Law.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news...-and-18d-racial-discrimination-act-what-stake

Section 18C makes it unlawful for someone to commit an act that’s reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the grounds of race. Section 18D protects freedom of expression. If you do something in artistic work, if you participate in academic or scientific inquiry, if you are engaged in fair reporting or fair comment on a matter of public interest, then you cannot be held to be in contravention of the law – provided that you act reasonably and in good faith.

Now in the current public commentary about how the laws operate, there are a lot of misconceptions about how sections 18C and 18D work. One is to refer to people being convicted or prosecuted under the RDA. That simply cannot happen. This is a civil law; it is not a criminal law...

No. Only if it falls under 18c

Once again see the bold quote above.

18 C

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

18 D

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Because Andrew Bolt failed to do his due diligence, his protections to 18C offered by 18D, section c) parts i) and ii) were stripped. If Bolt had've stuck to true facts instead of falsehoods he would not have been in this mess at all.

 

[Lester Burnham]

He's dead right. If Andrew Bolt had done his due diligence, if the copy-editors and whoever else proof-reads and fact-checks Bolt's articles before publication had done their jobs, Bolt would not have been in this mess.

Because she and the other named individuals were from another culture, the RDA route was open to Pat Eatock. Because he's gotten his stated facts wrong about a named individual from another culture, the 18D 'fair comment' defence was not open to Andrew Bolt.

As I noted a few responses ago, opinion is protected. Falsehoods stated as fact are not. When falsehoods are directed against named persons from another culture, it is only logical that the Racial Discrimination Act be looked at for those falsehoods to be measured against.

Andrew Bolt is not Joe Blow on the street. He is a voice in a publication whose daily readership runs well into the hundreds of thousands. Like all in the print media he owes it to his public to, when stating fact, at least get those facts right regardless of his politics.

Beyond his line that Bolt'" should get his facts right" Jonathan Holmes seems to have missed this point entirely.

You are incorrect. The act allows Bolt to get his facts wrong. He lost the case because this particular judge ruled that the tone of Bolt's words meant he did not make those errors in good faith. So we are reduced to one judge making a ruling based on the tone of what one person said that will determine what the rest of society might dare to say without fear of being taken to the high court?

 

[medusala]

Because Andrew Bolt failed to do his due diligence, his protections to 18C offered by 18D, section c) parts i) and ii) were stripped. If Bolt had've stuck to true facts instead of falsehoods he would not have been in this mess at all.

How can you claim that given the judgement?? You are clearly far more intelligent than the CastratedMonkey, surely you get this?

See what the failed ALP candidate said, ie fair comment was not sufficient.

Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You are incorrect. The act allows Bolt to get his facts wrong. He lost the case because this particular judge ruled that the tone of Bolt's words meant he did not make those errors in good faith. So we are reduced to one judge making a ruling based on the tone of what one person said that will determine what the rest of society might dare to say without fear of being taken to the high court?

How can you claim that given the judgement?? You are clearly far more intelligent than the CastratedMonkey, surely you get this?

See what the failed ALP candidate said, ie fair comment was not sufficient.

Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

As Judge Bromberg states;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew bolt

388. In the context of statutory qualified privilege, the Privy Council said in Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 354 at 364-365:

"There will of course be cases in which despite all reasonable care the journalist gets the facts wrong, but a member of the public is at least entitled to expect that a journalist will take reasonable care to get his facts right before he launches an attack upon him in a daily newspaper. If on inquiry it is found that the facts are not true and that reasonable care has not been taken to establish them courts should be very slow to hold that the newspaper is protected by statutory qualified privilege. The public deserve to be protected against irresponsible journalism. The defence of comment provides such protection by insisting upon the newspaper establishing the substantial truth of the facts upon which it comments..."

...To establish the defence of fair comment the requirement is not merely that the facts stated are true. Rather, it is that they be truly stated: Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47 at 62-3, Thompson v Truth & Sportsman Ltd (No 4) [1932] NSWStRp 86; (1932) 34 SR (NSW) 21 at 25.

The omission of a series of relevant facts, having the result that the factual scenario represented in a publication is quite unbalanced and potentially misleading to the average reader, results in a situation that the facts have not, relevantly, truly been stated...

414. ...The extent of mockery and inflammatory language utilised by Mr Bolt to disparage many of the individuals which the Newspaper Articles deal with, far exceeded that which was necessary to make Mr Bolt’s point. The treatment of Mr McMillan and Mr Mellor are perhaps the most potent examples. The articles are replete with comments and a derisive tone that have little or no legitimate forensic purpose to the argument propounded and in the context of the values which the RDA seeks to protect are not justified, including by an asserted need to amuse or entertain. In terms of the language utilised, I have in mind the following examples

“political Aborigine”;
◦“professional Aborigine”;
◦“the choice to be Aboriginal can seem almost arbitrary and intensely political”;
◦ “an official Aborigine and hired as such”;
◦ “How much more of this madness can you take?” ;
◦“self-obsessed” ;
◦“it is also divisive, feeding a new movement to stress pointless or even invented racial differences”;
◦“trivial inflections of race”;
◦“how comic”;
◦“blacker-than thou”;
◦“to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide”;
◦ “scuffling at the trough”;
◦“is that a man’s voice I now hear bellowing: ‘And I’m an Aboriginal woman’;
◦“you’d swear this is from a satire”;
◦“surrender my reason and pretend white is really black, just to aid some artist’s self-actualisation therapy”;
◦“That way lies madness, where truth is just a whim and words mean nothing”;
◦“a privileged white Aborigine snaffles that extra”;
◦“Seeking power and reassurance in a racial identity is not just weak;
◦....a borrowing of other people’s glories”; and
◦“At its worst, it’s them against us”;

415. In relation to the sub-group constituted by the individuals named in the Newspaper Articles, the language, tone and gratuitous asides contained in the Newspaper Articles were likely to have contributed to the likely offence, insult and humiliation of the people in that group. In relation to the broader group, I have found that the strong language utilised by the Newspaper Articles and the disrespectful manner in which those articles dealt with those identified will have heightened the intimidatory impact of the conduct.

I regard that impact as a particularly pernicious aspect of the 18C conduct in the context of what the RDA seeks to achieve. That young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity, may be apprehensive to identify as Aboriginal or publicly identify as Aboriginal, as a result of witnessing the ferocity of Mr Bolt’s attack on the individuals dealt with in the articles, is significant to my conclusion that in writing the articles, Mr Bolt failed to honour the values asserted by the RDA.

Lester, Meds, when you find the time, try going through the entire findings for yourselves. My knowledge of legal issues isn't the best and, to put it mildly, I'm struggling with bits of it. If it appears I'm cherry-picking bits and pieces it's only because the damn thing is far too long.

What I've quoted though, seems to wrap up why Judge Bromberg stated "Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

 

[Lester Burnham]

As Judge Bromberg states;



Lester, Meds, when you find the time, try going through the entire findings for yourselves. My knowledge of legal issues isn't the best and, to put it mildly, I'm struggling with bits of it. If it appears I'm cherry-picking bits and pieces it's only because the damn thing is far too long.

What I've quoted though, seems to wrap up why Judge Bromberg stated "Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

I could go through the whole findings GS. But here's the thing. Like your good self, most members of the public are not acquainted with the intricacies of RDA 18C and 18D. Or the subtleties of the Bolt case ruling.

The most pernicious aspect of free speech restrictions is the fear that expressing a certain belief might offend someone so much that they take legal action and so that person is afraid to express a certain opinion. For example , why would anyone risk being dragged to court for making an argument that welfare that is meant to be going to disadvantaged Aborigines is going to middle class people who have suffered no discrimination?

 

[CM86]

As Judge Bromberg states;



Lester, Meds, when you find the time, try going through the entire findings for yourselves. My knowledge of legal issues isn't the best and, to put it mildly, I'm struggling with bits of it. If it appears I'm cherry-picking bits and pieces it's only because the damn thing is far too long.

What I've quoted though, seems to wrap up why Judge Bromberg stated "Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith."

You're on the money GS, don't worry. It's a hobby horse for some, including me.
But you're evaluating it with an open and understanding mind.

xox

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I could go through the whole findings GS. But here's the thing. Like your good self, most members of the public are not acquainted with the intricacies of RDA 18C and 18D. Or the subtleties of the Bolt case ruling.

The most pernicious aspect of free speech restrictions is the fear that expressing a certain belief might offend someone so much that they take legal action and so that person is afraid to express a certain opinion. For example , why would anyone risk being dragged to court for making an argument that welfare that is meant to be going to disadvantaged Aborigines is going to middle class people who have suffered no discrimination?

Take some duty of care, Lester. If something concerns you, take care with how you word things. If you can't present your concerns in an even-handed way without being mocking or insulting then you are going to get problems,

If you fire unsubstantiated falsehoods at people you are going to get problems.

As you should.

 

[Maggie5]

Gee, of all the things to discuss when governments are becoming more intrusive with the data retention laws, being stripped of nationality, being in custody for an undetermined period, I am sure that there are a couple of others.

Yet some here are going on and on about what you can say in case it offends another person.

Simple, if you think it will , don't say it.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Take some duty of care, Lester. If something concerns you, take care with how you word things. If you can't present your concerns in an even-handed way without being mocking or insulting then you are going to get problems,

If you fire unsubstantiated falsehoods at people you are going to get problems.

As you should.

The duty of care is going to be on myself, as yours should be. I will restrict what I say, in case I say something that some judge might deem to be incorrect and he deems what I have said it not in good faith. I am not going to take that chance to participate in those such discussions.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The duty of care is going to be on myself, as yours should be. I will restrict what I say, in case I say something that some judge might deem to be incorrect and he deems what I have said it not in good faith. I am not going to take that chance to participate in those such discussions.

So you value the ability to promote lies as truth then, as Mr Bolt was found to have done? This whole thing isn't about Andrew Bolt's concerns, but how he presented them, and the unsubstantiated falsehoods he brought to bear in his articles.

We've dealt with each other here without falling back to insults, mockery or making s**t up about each other Lester. Was it hard? Would it be harder to maintain an even tone if you found out I was black? Or Asian? Or a woman?

How difficult is it to maintain respect even while being critical? Do you think its impossible?

 

[Power Raid]

Welfare that is meant to be going to disadvantaged Aborigines is going to middle class people who have suffered no discrimination.

I await my trial...

you only sue people with deep pockets or where you want to shut something up for strategic reasons

 

[CM86]

you only sue people with deep pockets or where you want to shut something up for strategic reasons

What is the total amount ($) that has been awarded to the victims after findings from the RDA?...

Since the law was enacted.

 

[Power Raid]

What is the total amount ($) that has been awarded to the victims after findings from the RDA?...

Since the law was enacted.

Who cares, its not relevant as to the decision making of who you sue.............you only sue people with deep pockets or where you want to shut something up for strategic reasons