Bolt is a troll

[Baltimore Jack]

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 6B Application of the Criminal Code
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 6B
Application of the Criminal Code
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.

Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

 

[AM]

He said making a cheap shot.



For someone who purports to know about legal matters you are very sloppy. Bolt was not 'found guilty' of anything. Such a verdict is not possible from a claim made under the RDA. But I'm sure you'll have a 'clarification' for us.

 

[AM]

Was it a full moon last night?

And he probably gets to vote.

 

[Frank Bunn]

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 6B Application of the Criminal Code
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 6B
Application of the Criminal Code
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.

Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

Think it might have been a full moon in your neck of the woods.

​

The RDA does not make racial vilification a criminal offence, and offers only a civil remedy.

Hence why if you search through Eatock v Bolt you'll only find one mention of the word 'guilty' and it's not in the judge's findings.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/race-hate-and-rda

 

[Frank Bunn]

Sloppy errors to GIFs of actors is not a positive move.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If an Offence has been committed against an Act and that Offence has been proven in a Court, then there must be a finding of Guilt on one of the Parties to the Action

 

[Frank Bunn]

If an Offence has been committed against an Act and that Offence has been proven in a Court, then there must be a finding of Guilt on one of the Parties to the Action

Keep searching for that full moon

 

[AM]

If an Offence has been committed against an Act and that Offence has been proven in a Court, then there must be a finding of Guilt on one of the Parties to the Action

Nit-picking, personal denigration et al are part of the Bolt playbook Baltimore Jack. We should remember he/she.... is a Bolt apologist. Climate change isn't real as we know.

Justice Bromberg found Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act and in so doing his two pieces contained factual errors. Or to put it as Justice Bromberg did in his summary "......contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language"

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

He's a recidivist.

 

[Maggie5]

Nit-picking, personal denigration et al are part of the Bolt playbook Baltimore Jack. We should remember he/she.... is a Bolt apologist. Climate change isn't real as we know.

Justice Bromberg found Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act and in so doing his two pieces contained factual errors. Or to put it as Justice Bromberg did in his summary "......contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language"

Had the same experience with him with regard to Andrews/Red shirt issue in that no charges were being laid by police. Mathew Guy being the complainant and I notice that Guy still hasn't pressed charges. Easier to not engage.

 

[AM]

Had the same experience with him with regard to Andrews/Red shirt issue in that no charges were being laid by police. Mathew Guy being the complainant and I notice that Guy still hasn't pressed charges. Easier to not engage.

Agree Maggie. You and many others. Think it's colloquially known as "Shitposting"

 

[Generalissimo]

I seem to recall TimmeT making the exact same ruleslawyer defence of the Blot, and making the exact same fool of himself.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Nit-picking, personal denigration et al are part of the Bolt playbook Baltimore Jack. We should remember he/she.... is a Bolt apologist. Climate change isn't real as we know.

Justice Bromberg found Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act and in so doing his two pieces contained factual errors. Or to put it as Justice Bromberg did in his summary "......contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language"

Pointing out your sloppy mistakes isn't nit picking. And as for personal denigration, that is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. You've made snide comments about me to your personal peanut gallery in your last four posts.

The crux of Eatock v Bolt was about whether the judge thought the errors Bolt made in the article were made in good faith, hence denying him the exceptions provided under Section 18d of the RDA. Similarly, you have made errors recently by saying Bolt was not 'found guilty in a court of law' (and that Pell was appealing his sentence). Given your comments towards Bolt, such as calling him 'Dolt' it might be seen that you did not make the error in good faith.

But relax. No one is going to initiate legal action against you to decide if you made your errors in good faith, or whether your motivation for making them was hate based. However, under the Racial Discrimination Act anyone who makes such an error in relation to discussing a race related topic could be dragged through the courts for an extended and costly process - for a judge to make a ruling whether the error was made in good faith.

Bolt's comments would not have been unlawful in the USA or UK, and many other countries. The reasonable and independent reviews of the operation of RDA 18C have emphasised the balance between free speech and not advocating hatred. They have also recommended lowering the harm threshold to exclude mere offence taking, and to provide legislative clarification of the meaning of the 'reasonably and good faith' requirement I.E. for the law not to be determined an unelected judge.

 

[Badesumofu]

Look, Bolt is a convicted racist, that’s pretty much all you need to know about him. A sadly large proportion of the right-of-centre posters here are also alt-right/far-right/racist/unhinged lunatics as well, though, so what are you gonna do?

 

[AM]

Pointing out your sloppy mistakes isn't nit picking. And as for personal denigration, that is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. You've made snide comments about me to your personal peanut gallery in your last four posts.

The crux of Eatock v Bolt was about whether the judge thought the errors Bolt made in the article were made in good faith, hence denying him the exceptions provided under Section 18d of the RDA. Similarly, you have made errors recently by saying Bolt was not 'found guilty in a court of law' (and that Pell was appealing his sentence). Given your comments towards Bolt, such as calling him 'Dolt' it might be seen that you did not make the error in good faith.

But relax. No one is going to initiate legal action against you to decide if you made your errors in good faith, or whether your motivation for making them was hate based. However, under the Racial Discrimination Act anyone who makes such an error in relation to discussing a race related topic could be dragged through the courts for an extended and costly process - for a judge to make a ruling whether the error was made in good faith.

Bolt's comments would not have been unlawful in the USA or UK, and many other countries. The reasonable and independent reviews of the operation of RDA 18C have emphasised the balance between free speech and not advocating hatred. They have also recommended lowering the harm threshold to exclude mere offence taking, and to provide legislative clarification of the meaning of the 'reasonably and good faith' requirement I.E. for the law not to be determined an unelected judge.

Too many inaccuracies and irrelevancies to be bothered with. But thanks for confirming Blot Bolt was found to have authored 2 pieces which contained factual errors. Which was my point.

BTW Your impersonation of Blot Bolt was impeccable.

 

[AM]

Look, Bolt is a convicted racist, that’s pretty much all you need to know about him. A sadly large proportion of the right-of-centre posters here are also alt-right/far-right/racist/unhinged lunatics as well, though, so what are you gonna do?

They certainly do have more than their fair share of nimrods.

Liked this except from a piece by Assoc Prof Lidberg from Monash on Blot.

The second point is that Andrew Bolt is a walking, living, writing illustration of the word coined by American comedian and fake conservative pundit Stephen Colbert in 2005 – ‘truthiness’.

The concept of ‘truthiness’ is not to let facts get in the way of what you know, indeed you feel, is the truth – ‘in your gut’, as Colbert puts it. Colbert concludes his segment by leaning forward towards the camera claiming that ‘I will feel the news at you.’ This is exactly what Bolt and some other conservative columnists do over and over again until it becomes some sort of truth-iness. The questioning of man made climate change comes to mind as one example. Bolt’s inaccuracies in the two columns that saw him convicted in the Federal Court is another example of ‘truthiness’. It’s further compounded by the fact that Bolt reluctantly admitted to some of the factual errors but that he did not see them as significant. Justice Bromberg saw it differently.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Too many inaccuracies and irrelevancies to be bothered with. But thanks for confirming Blot Bolt was found to have authored 2 pieces which contained factual errors. Which was my point.

BTW Your impersonation of Blot Bolt was impeccable.

I refer you to your own post on shitposting. You're an intellectual coward.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Bolt is a ****ing dog.

 

[TimmeT]

Nit-picking, personal denigration et al are part of the Bolt playbook Baltimore Jack. We should remember he/she.... is a Bolt apologist. Climate change isn't real as we know.

Justice Bromberg found Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act and in so doing his two pieces contained factual errors. Or to put it as Justice Bromberg did in his summary "......contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language"

HMM nit picking and personal degeneration are also from the AM playbook. Wouldn't be attacking others about this when you have history of doing it too.

Justice Bromberg also never found Bolt guilty.

 

[AM]

HMM nit picking and personal degeneration are also from the AM playbook. Wouldn't be attacking others about this when you have history of doing it too.

Justice Bromberg also never found Bolt guilty.

I'm breaking a pledge in responding to you Timme Timme. Blot was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act by telling porkies. But he wasn't guilty. Sure!

I was reminded today of another of Blot's ventures into "truthiness" which didn't end well.

 

[TimmeT]

I'm breaking a pledge in responding to you Timme Timme. Blot was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act by telling porkies. But he wasn't guilty. Sure!

I was reminded today of another of Blot's ventures into "truthiness" which didn't end well.

just because.you keep posting something multiple.times doesnt suddenly.make something.true

 

[Generalissimo]

just because.you keep posting something multiple.times doesnt suddenly.make something.true

You're making a fool of yourself. The facts are not in your favour.

 

[TimmeT]

You're making a fool of yourself. The facts are not in your favour.

Bolt was not found guilty of being a racist. That is a fact as the law doesnt permit a finding of guilty or not guilty under that law. It is a poor comment to make just like the idiots who say the age was found guilty of defamation.

 

[Maggie5]

You're making a fool of yourself. The facts are not in your favour.

The answer is in the name of the Act, whether the word 'guilty' is used or not, the fact is he 'breached' the act.
Don't let TimmeT get to you, he likes playing around with words.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Keep searching for that full moon

Keep splitting them hairs. Yeah, such a massive point of difference between the meanings of "contravened" and "guilty".