An open thread on this topic. Obviously, please avoid anything that might be seen as defamatory, either of Bolt, the plaintiffs, other commentators or anyone else.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Is anyone aware of any ‘darker skinned’ Aboriginals who agree with Bolt’s articles? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many who agreed with him. If that were the case wouldn’t that rather undermine the idea that it is racially discriminatory?
Hmm, “wouldn’t that rather undermine the idea that it is racially discriminatory?” I don’t think so, Martin. Bolt’s stated views are objectionable, regardless of who agrees with him.
And having lived among Aboriginal people for most of my life, and as the father of light-skinned indigenous girls, I can’t think of any black fellas who would agree with him.
If you are raised in an Aboriginal family that is part of an Aboriginal community, and you’ve seen your family put up with or react to the casual unthinking discrimination that Aboriginal people encounter every day, you’ll consider yourself Aboriginal no matter how pale your skin.
The irony of this issue is that it’s not so long ago that light-skinned Aborigines were not white enough for people like the execrable Bolt, and now that his ilk thinks there are benefits to be had from Aboriginality, they are not black enough.
I used to think that Bolt expressed his extreme reactionary views because it was good for business, and that he probably didn’t really believe the tripe he writes – I thought he couldn’t actually be that stupid, but seeing his reaction to the the judgment today, by crikey his dismay might just be genuine.
Who is not offended by Bolt’s commentary is not of particular consequence in deciding whether Bolt has transgressed or not; the issue is who was offended. I appreciate the point you are trying to make, Martin Spencer, but repudiate it.
Some media commentators, who are arguing in favour of Bolt’s “alleged right” to say whatever he damn well pleases, have come up with the “But only Bolt knows his intentions (eg to offend, to hurt, or, to innocently bring to light an issue that is in the public interest) so we cannot argue to his intent” line. As skewered brilliantly on the ABC Drum, if this was correct, then Bolt’s original articles fail by dint of presuming the motives of the offended parties, ie in their assuming an `Aboriginal Identity’. If Bolt’s motives are not to be presumed, nor should be the motives of those who were the subject of Bolt’s diatribes.
He cooked his goose, and now he has to lie in it…
I thought the Bolt articles were a perfectly reasonable contribution to public discourse. I fully expected him to be acquited. Given that he wasn’t I’m kind of mad as hell with the law. Action needs to be taken to remove this law from the statute books. What has happened today is fundamentally wrong. That large slabs of the left (with some notable exceptions) can’t see this shows the hollowness of the moral superiority they claim. On Larvatus Prodeo we got the following gem in comments:-
@TerjeP
I’ve been fascinated to watch the decline of liberal civic values here.
1) The law should not be used as a device to humiliate ideological opponents.
2) Andrew Bolt did not display racial prejudice.
3) People should be allowed to adopt racist positions in general. The rest of civil society should be allowed to censure (but not censor) such positions.
@Donald Oats
Donald, this would only mean his article was silly, and based on flawed analysis. It’s a long way to go from there to banning it.
@Donald Oats
I certainly have no desire to defend Bolt… That said, there is a difference between a silly individual presuming motives when expressing a view and a court presuming motives when issuing a judgement.
Court judgements, and the presumptions on which they are based, can lead to sentences. In this context, dubious presumptions are generally far more dangerous than when they are when included in silly statements.
Having read some of the judgement, I do not see any attack on *free speech* and the judgement makes that point. Free speech does not allow people to publicly slander, libel or impugn without responsibility.
@rog
Free speech doesn’t allow that. And if Bolt had done that why didn’t they use the law that covers libel? The learned judge should have been quite specific about what exactly it was about the manner that contravened the section. I haven’t read the judgement but I hope he did have something much more specific to say.
“I have found a contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with” is not nearly good enough, as it says little more than I have decided that he broke the law.
If you are having trouble getting your head around the Bolt matter try this. It wasn’t an attack on free speech just dreadful journalism. http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/freedom-of-speech-rides-on-20110928-1kxaa.html If they had sued for defamation like Tony Abbott against Bob Ellis ( $277,000 payout. attack on free speech?) they would all be richer today.
@Freelander The learned judge gave many reasons not least
Bolt and his gang of supporters are claiming the right to spread untruths freely and without restriction and without consideration of the individuals freedom.
Andrew Bolt gives his verdict on the verdict:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/
@TerjeP He is unable to see past his ego, it’s all about Andrew.
@rog
You can’t see past his ego. For you it’s all about Andrew.
Terje said “I thought the Bolt articles were a perfectly reasonable contribution to public discourse.”
Not really. David Marr has it right. It’s not about free speech, it’s about sloppy journalism. The attack by Bolt on Larissa Behrendt is perhaps the most egregious example. He claimed she chose to become Aboriginal whereas she was brought up as one from birth. He claimed she had a German father whereas she had an Aboriginal father. He consistently made errors which he peppered with gratuitous insults (sneeringly referring to her as “mein liebching” is probably the most memorable).
For it to be a “reasonable contribution” it needed to be based on facts. It wasn’t. It was vicious, poorly researched character assassination. In other words, sloppy journalism.
Marr’s article, which lists some of the worst of Bolt’s errors, is at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html
@rog
The judge’s statement is ridiculous. While their upbringing may have been to identify themselves as Aborigine, adults are not automatons; as adults they choose what they identify as. To say that “None of them made a conscious or deliberate choice to identify as Aboriginal” is simply absurd. They would be strange adults indeed if they didn’t make such choices. Yet again a judge making it up. I don’t have any problem with them identifying themselves as Aborigines or Martians for that matter. And I don’t really care why they make that choice, whether for reasons of habituation due to upbringing, familial feelings or whatever, or through choice for other reasons. But likewise, I don’t have any problem with Bolt suggesting the motives he did for their choice. If there was something wrong with that suggestion under the laws of libel, I would have no problems with him having been sued successfully using those laws. The law he was assaulted with is bad, dangerous and unnecessary law. There were plenty of laws without that one providing satisfactory limitations on freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is important, and is all about letting people say things we don’t agree with or like. And Bolt happens to say a lot that I don’t agree with or like. If those things we don’t like to hear are suppressed and those who say them are made martyrs, the suppression and martyrdom provides them with an undeserved validation, and protects them from being defeated in debate. Without debate those who casually hold views we would suppress never have to hear strong arguments against them.
My objection to Bolt and his ilk is not his saying things I don’t agree with or like, but that he has a platform that only he and his ilk have access to, the Murdoch media. To me, that is not freedom of speech, that one media mogul owning 70 per cent of the press can ensure contrary voices, the voices he doesn’t agree with or like, are only heard as a whisper simply by denying access. This imbalance is what ought to be addressed, and if it were, Bolt’s ravings would hardly be worth worrying about.
Freelander – people are not forced to buy Murdoch papers. They choose to because out of the mix available they find something of worth in them. One might have been able to once argue that there were serious barriers to entry but in the digital age they are all but gone. In fact globally Murdoch is bleeding money because people prefer the free alternatives offered by the new media. Nobody is being silenced by Murdoch. However obviously some people get ignored by the mainstream. Possible because they are not offering what the mainstream want. We all should have the right to free speech but that does not mean others must listen.
Defamation law ought to go also. It presumes that people own their reputation. What I think about you is not your property. If my opinion of you get’s lowered what is changed is something that belongs to me not something that belongs to you. You have no moral claim over my opinion.
@TerjeP
Likewise, you are not forced to breath air and whats in it. Entirely a matter of choice.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had more choice of newspapers in Australia? I know. We could force that American to divest his Australian holdings. I’m not keen on a foreigner owning so much of our media anyway.
Of course Terje reckons:
And so these folks can only ramp up the verbal violence;
I’m mad as hell, Free speech! free speech! (for selective capitalist newspapers running agendas).
In a civilised multi-cultural society, once an anti-Discrimination Act has been passed, then public conduct needs to be lawful. If you don’t agree then you need to go through the normal social movement, political party, lobbying process to change it.
Bolt didn’t – he deliberately confronted the law and multicultural society, based on his (and newspapers) individual agenda.
All this just goes to underline just how anti-social and disruptive these few rightwing ideologues in fact are.
The fact that Terje fully expected Bolt to be acquited, and is now over reacting, is weird given all the false statements revealed in the court case. Why should any newspaper have the right to free speech of false statements for political purposes.
What do they want? – forget parliamant, forget the law and courts – all power to Capital?
If Bolt’s article had just been honest racism (without deliberate lies about particular individuals), he wouldn’t have been found guilty.
@TerjeP
Defamation is about saying things about someone that would damage their reputation that you cannot prove to be true. Defamation need make no presumption that you own your reputation. What is sufficient is understanding that damaging your reputation will likely damage you. Defamation law doesn’t make any claim over whatever goes on in your head. Only over what comes out of your mouth, your pen, or keyboard.
If you tell lies about someone that would tend to damage their reputation then clearly you have done them harm and surely it is perfectly reasonable that they have a cause of action.
@gerard
Have you got the part of the judgement where it says Bolt told deliberate lies? If Bolt was guilty of all these things they should have gone after him for libel.
They could probably have made more money with a defamation case.
But I think they wanted to make a political statement, have Bolt convicted as a racist liar (not just a regular liar), and set a legal precedent demonstrating that the RDA had this sort of power.
Having watched how Bolt has distorted climate science and help misinform the public, I’m actually pleased he recieved this slap on the wrist.
Let’s put it context.
Bolt is Australia’s highest circulated newspaper columnist. He has the backing of the world’s largest media empire. He has a spot on channel 10 every Sunday morning.
Freedom of speech? Yes.
Freedom from responsibility? No.
The judgement is a corrective to the lies, fallacies and outright fabrications Bolt published through major media channels.
Bolt is typical of the right wing bullies and idealogues at News Ltd.
@gerard
Yes I suppose it was pure Left politics at its best – viz the principle is more important than the dollars.
This action has advanced Australian society. The plaintiffs are heros.
@Freelander Some of the facts relied upon as the basis of the comments made about motivation have been proven to be untrue.
In the first article (1A-21), Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Heiss had won “plum jobs reserved for Aborigines” at each of three named institutions or enterprises. Each of those assertions was erroneous. Mr Bolt accepted that they were wrong because they were exaggerated. One of the positions that Mr Bolt claimed Ms Heiss had won as a “plum job” was a voluntary unpaid position. The other two positions were not reserved for Aboriginal people but were positions for which Aboriginal people were encouraged to apply.
Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Eatock “thrived as an Aboriginal bureaucrat, activist and academic” (1A-28). The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous. Ms Eatock has had only six to six and a half years of employment since 1977. In the case of Ms Eatock, Mr Bolt also suggested in the first article that she identified as an Aboriginal for political motives after attending a political rally (1A-27). That statement is untrue. Ms Eatock recognised herself to be an Aboriginal person from when she was eight years old whilst still at school and did not do so for political reasons.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html
Paragraphs 380 to 382
@Freelander When the Newspaper Articles are analysed, what is apparent is that the individuals who are examined are dealt with in one of two ways. The first is where no cultural reference is made at all and the individual’s identification is examined purely by biological considerations, either through ancestry, skin colour or a combination of the two. Alternatively, both a biological and a cultural reference (usually oblique) are made in relation to the individual, but in every case the cultural reference suggests a non-Aboriginal cultural upbringing. Thus, in the first article:
“raised by her English-Jewish mother” (Cole) (1A-2);
“Culturally, she’s more European” (Sax) (1A-6);
“Yet her mother, who raised her in industrial Wollongong, is in fact boringly English” (Winch) (1A-11);
“she was raised in Sydney and educated at St Claire’s Catholic College” (Heiss) (1A-19);
“from the age of 10 was a boarder at a Victorian Catholic school” (Dodson) (1A-32);
“having been raised by her white mother” (Behrendt) (online version of 1A);
“raised by her white mother” (Behrendt) (2A-20); and
“raised by her English mother” (Cole) (2A-24).
Thus, the reader is presented with some cultural references. The reader is not likely to assume that cultural reference was regarded by Mr Bolt as irrelevant to his opinion about racial identification. To the contrary, the reader is presented with an opinion which appears to be based, at least in part, upon cultural references as an indicator of race. The reader would presume that as a journalist, Mr Bolt would have undertaken research and presented relevant facts. The fact that some research about cultural background has been undertaken is evident. In that context, the reader would understand the assertion conveyed that the individuals are not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely self-identifying as Aboriginal, to be based upon Mr Bolt’s research of both biological and cultural considerations.
In part, the cultural references where given, were erroneous. But more fundamentally, the Aboriginal cultural upbringing which was available to be presented at least in relation to nine of the eighteen individuals dealt with by the Newspaper Articles, was not included. Those facts were relevant, in the context of a comment in part based upon cultural considerations. Their omission meant that the facts were not truly stated. For that reason also, the offensive imputation was not a fair comment.
The omission of those facts is also relevant to the issue of reasonableness and good faith. The omission occurred in circumstances where the facts were likely to be either publicly available or readily obtainable, including by Mr Bolt contacting the individuals concerned. Mr Bolt presented evidence of having undertaken some online research about the individuals, but it was not evidence upon which I could be satisfied that a diligent attempt had been made to make reasonable inquiries.
Dr Atkinson was raised in an Aboriginal fringe camp on the ancestral lands of his Aboriginal ancestors. Mr Clark was raised as Aboriginal in a well-known Aboriginal community in Victoria. Both those witnesses and others, gave evidence that their life story and identification was available on the internet. All of Ms Eatock and her witnesses gave evidence that Mr Bolt had failed to contact them to ascertain their circumstances and that if contacted they would have told Mr Bolt of their circumstances as described in their evidence. In Mr Clark’s case, he was also well known to Mr Bolt. Mr Bolt had written about him for over a decade.
There is other evidence which also suggests to me that Mr Bolt was not particularly interested in including reference to the Aboriginal cultural upbringing of the individuals he wrote about.
Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Cole was raised by her “English-Jewish” or “English” mother (1A-2; 2A-24). That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Cole’s Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Cole’s identification as an Aboriginal. He wrote that Ms Cole “rarely saw her part-Aboriginal father” (1A-3). That statement is factually incorrect. Ms Cole’s father was Aboriginal and had been a part of her life until she was six years old. Ms Cole later lived with her father for a year whilst growing up.
Mr Bolt’s documentary source for the statements he made in the articles about how Ms Cole was raised, expressly referred to the involvement of Ms Cole’s Aboriginal grandmother in Ms Cole’s upbringing. It quoted Ms Cole attributing to her grandmother the fact that she felt “staunchly proud and strong” about being an Aboriginal person. Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space.
He also relied on that reason for the lack of cultural reference given in relation to Prof Behrendt. The factual assertions made that Prof Behrendt was “raised by her white mother” (2A-20) were also erroneous. Prof Behrendt’s Aboriginal father did not separate from her mother until Prof Behrendt was about 15 years old. Her father was always part of her family during her upbringing, even after that separation.
In my view, Mr Bolt was intent on arguing a case. He sought to do so persuasively. 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.
Mr Bolt said of Wayne and Graham Atkinson that they were “Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (1A-33). In the second article Mr Bolt wrote of Graham Atkinson that “his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (A2-28). The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect. The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article. Mr Bolt did not seek to deny the evidence of Aboriginal ancestry given by the Atkinsons but insisted that their ancestry was accurately conveyed by the statements made and extracted above.
The documentary source upon which Mr Bolt relied for his statement that Ms Eatock only started to identify as Aboriginal “when she was 19 after attending a political rally” (1A-27), was in evidence. That source made an incorrect assertion as to when Ms Eatock began “publicly” identifying as Aboriginal. Mr Bolt repeated the error as to age (for which no complaint is made) but left out “publicly”. The absence of that word created the false impression that Ms Eatock had not identified as an Aboriginal person before she was 19 years old and only upon attending a political meeting. In his evidence, Mr Bolt was unimpressively dismissive of the significance of that omission.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html
Paragraphs 396 to 407
I don’t think that the free speech defense of Bolt makes much sense. The reason why free speech is so important is that it informs public debate. Deliberate lies can only misinform public debate and therefore in my eyes serve no public purpose.
Further unfettered free speech can clearly impact upon liberty and I think this makes the libertarian defense incorrect. For example using public or social media, it would be easy to circulate a lie that some individual is, say, a pedophile. Obviously if done effectively this could be immensely damaging to the victim.
My understanding (which admittedly is a bit vague and hazy) is that the law attempts to maximize both freedom of speech and the corresponding trade-off which is freedom from defamation. This can be done precisely and it seems like a very uncontroversial idea which should receive widespread support.
I have difficulty understanding why people keep raising this as some sort of objection. Clealry the plaintiffs had two options in this case – they could have filed suits for defamation, or they could use the provisions of s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (which resembles defamation in many respects). They chose the latter, possibly because they could file a class action, rather than multiple individual actions, which would have been required if they had used the defamation law. In terms of the justice of the matter, the result is essentially the same – the articles were defamatory, and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The decision to rely on the Racial Discrimination Act probably had the significant public benefit of saving Court time and public money, when compared with the prospect of multiple defamation suits.
Maybe somebody should do this to Terje and see if he changes his mind about defamation law.
There was an old joke in the USSR. In Russia we have freedom of speech. In America they have freedom after speech.
What Bolt said shouldn’t have to be journalism. He should be able to express any opinion he likes without government thugs interfering.
Perhaps you know the famous line arguing for limitations on free speech, “No one should be allowed to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded movie theatre? ”
That was made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. He was writing for a unanimous Court, ruling that it was illegal for a group of Jewish antiwar activists to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I.
The sentiment was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). I say the USA has this one exactly right. The rest of the world just isn’t civilised on this score.
I’m actually kind of flabbergasted so many people have been wrong on this. I’m a collectivist on the responsibility people have to help (and abstain from harming) others. On freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression though, uncompromising individualism is the only possible way to run a decent society.
@TerjeP The fact that the Murdoch papers are, on one level, loss making ventures is irrelevant.
As for nobody being silenced by Murdoch, there is evidence in the UK that Murdoch used his papers as weapons against politicians.
Here’s the interesting case of Ezra Levant from Canada a few years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8
His case was perhaps even more clearly a travesty of justice than Bolt’s. He was hauled before the Alberta Human rights commission for the high crime of “offending” Mohammed after republishing the Danish cartoons.
There’s a fieryness and anger in his voice that really inspired me when I first saw it. It’s what caused me to believe the modern Left is not the sole intellectual heir to the 18th century Enlightenment. Modern libertarians are often their own worst enemy when it comes to self promotion, but so called progressives could learn a lot from them.
Wrong Sam? You history of the law in the U.S. does not support the very strong conclusion that you draw here.
Surely you would acknowledge that unfettered free speech at least has the potential to be antisocial (to some degree) as well as socially beneficial? (see my example above).
A trade-off exists between the desirability of freedom of speech and the desirability of freedom from defamation. We can argue about where the optimal point is, but the idea that this trade-off doesn’t exist, or that the optimum is automatically an end point solution is not correct.
@Sam
“government thugs” ?! Who are these thugs?
free speech is not a licence to lie.
lies were broadcast.
lies were identified.
here is not USA.
money was not the motive of the lied about in bringing to law the aknowlegment of the broadcast of lies by the lied about and naming specifically the lies lied by the liar.
whew.
I agree with Sam. If lies were said then libel laws are sufficient. When it comes to freedom of speech the speech we have to defend is the speech we don’t like (within reason which is as the prior law had it). Once the types of fine distinctions these additional laws try to make are introduced the problem becomes one of ‘who guards the guardians’. A balance has to be struck and letting a certain amount of (apparent) harm go unpunished is best because in trying to eliminate all harm new harms are invariably introduced. The person that the current mob will be quite happy to have the full weight of law smash today may be a hero tomorrow. I am sure the judgement against the Jewish antiwar protesters would have been popular, at the time. But today, rightly in my view, we think differently.
Why do people struggle with the concept that the column was based on lies. Even News Ltd conceded this.
Please before commenting could you all read the judgement and then show us the bit where the judge said these matters could not be discussed. Indeed he said the opposite. It is sad that people think telling lies about people is acceptable journalism. But it does seem t be the common thinking. Just make up any crap ad when people ask you to correct it say your right of free speech is being impeded. This is about bad journalism.
I don’t get it.
Perhaps? I would have thought that there is a profound difference between a publication that allegedly “offends” a person who has been dead for more than a thousand years, and one that makes false, demeaning statements about named living individuals. Penalising the first is unquestioningly a travesty of justice. To do the same to the second is much less obviously so. The Human Rights Commission decision against Levant was quite rightly overturned on appeal.
I must admit, I am quite concerned about legislative moves towards some forms of human rights-type rules that broaden restrictions on speech to the point where disputes about matters of religion, politics, particular lifestyles and so forth can be subject to legal sanctions.
I think there is a case to be made that race is different, because people have no choice as to the racial category they fall into. By contrast, questions like religion, politics etc are matters of conscience and opinion.
@Freelander
Correct me if I am wrong here, but wasn’t it determined that Bolt was not acting in good faith? My understanding is that this is legal speak for lying, or at least deliberately misleading. I have no problem with people making innocent mistakes but I don’t think that this is the case here.
Further Sam advocates ‘uncompromising individualism’ with respect to freedom of expression which I take to mean unconstrained free speech. You appear to be advocating a balance of free speech and defamation laws which is what I am arguing for.
@Durutti
a struggle with the concept that the column was based on lies?
there is no argument possible to say lies were not broadcast.
this is an attempt
to turn the situation into one where the poor-hard-done-by
hard-working
not-getting-fair-go
victim-of-mouth-frothing-rabid-socialist-leftie-greeny-fancy-shmancy
(i’m running out of morloch media expletives here)
champion of gods gift
of the right to lie with impunity,
is able to get away with lying with impunity.
he’s not going to apologise,neither is his medium of broadcast.(imho)
as far as they are concerned they have a perfect right to lie with impunity.(imho)
there are no government thugs involved except the legislators who wrote the Racial Discrimination Act back in the 70s. And clearly they did think about the implications for free speech – from the website:
“Fair and accurate report” may be subjective, but it would be pretty difficult for Bolt to claim that his report was fair and accurate.
The question is whether racial vilification is a category of speech that warrants this type of special attention – whether it is fundamentally different than other types of speech that “we don’t like”.
Some context. Bromberg ruled that the relief available under s18D (basically protection for good faith statements on matters of public interest) from the more general constraint in s18C was not available because Blot made no serious attempt to get his facts correct. He further noted that had he done so the general claim he sought to make would have been implausible. Thus, a good faith defence was excluded.
One might note also The News Ltd Code of Conduct which runs in part as follows:
So readers had a form of warranty about the professional practice of Bolt (laughable since it is not known to have been enforced but there you have it)
He can’t claim 18D with that in the baggage he took to court.
Bolt might have made his trolling claims of misuse of identity for personal profit at the expense of authentic recipients (i.e those having the requisite amount of melanin in their faces to satisfy him) of a program to which he objects in toto (again one coughs at the hypocrisy) if he hadn’t actually referred to any specific living person and avoided the terrible and crushing sanction of having a correction and apology published on his behalf of course.
Also relevant here in the code:
This last point — relevance — clearly implies accuracy, since inaccurate things are ipso fact not relevant. Blot ought to have known that even by the published standards of his employer, leave aside those of “lefty lawyers” he was out of order. He choooses to work for them and can’t bleat now about the state oppressing him into noisy silence.
Moreover, I’d say it’s telling that when you strip away the posturing and consider the “sanction” imposed by law, it’s to publish a correction and an apology.
The thing that offends Blot most is being forced to co-exist with truth and civilised conduct. This offence is so grave in his view as to truncate his scope to express himself as he pleases, to “silence” him. He dare not run such a risk this morning, according to him.
Need one add anything to the Blot’s admissions to see how they damn him and the army of the living dead behind him? Probably not.
@gerard
@Fran Barlow
Ahh ok that makes sense.
The SMH article on the topic says that Bolt is not required to publish a retraction nor an apology.
Bolt’s writing was, as it often is, contemptible and there should be means for the complainants to force prominent correction of the factual errors it contained independant of any mention of race – but this part of the Racial Discrimination Act should be repealed. Its an unnecessary even counter-productive restriction of speech.
That is a misleading representation of US law. The limitations imposed on free speech by US defamation laws are well-known to be narrower in their scope than the limitations imposed by defamation laws in other countries, but they are not non-existent.
as for Bolt being the victim of anti free-speech “thugs”, they are pretty lame as far as thugs go.
Bolt is not going to be jailed or fined, he isn’t going to lose his job, he hasn’t been banned from writing about any topics, he hasn’t been given a criminal record, he’s not being made to write an apology. basically the extent of his victim-hood is being accurately called a liar by a judge. Although to be fair, that is worse than Alan Jones copped after inciting the Cronulla riots.
@NickR
Hi Nick. Sorry to take so long to reply. It seems to me you’re asserting that two categories of speech should be restricted; lies about individuals, and speech that does general social harm. I’ll deal with both in turn.
I’m Ok with libel laws and such existing in some form. In fact, I’m OK with forcing journalists to print corrections of any errors in purely factual assertion they are determined to have made.
I’d define “factual assertion” very narrowly however. For example “Mr Smith shot Mr Brown with his gun” is a factual assertion, “Mr Bloggs does not really belong to a particular (hazily defined) ‘race'” is not. The distinction is that while everyone agrees on what the words “shot” and “gun” mean, the same is not true of “race.”
What should be totally free though, is opinions on clearly unknowable facts – including opinions about motive. So in your example, I shouldn’t be able to baselessly say “Mr X had sex with a child.” I should be able to say “I believe X wants to have sex with children and would if he had the chance.” Others ought to then drastically lower their opinion of me of course if what I say is unfounded, but the law shouldn’t get involved.
It seems to me the supposed ‘lies’ Bolt has made have been of the type “Mr X didn’t have very much to do with his aboriginality. He had a choice between several racial identities and chose this one for cynical (or otherwise unfortunate) reasons.” According to my moral code, that’s not a knowable factual assertion. Indeed, not even Mr X can know the full range of his motives.
For the second category, speech that does general social harm, I’m quite a lot less sympathetic to the censors. My position is actually pretty close to an end point, and is exactly where modern interpretations of the first amendment lie. Socially damaging speech should only be banned if it’s “directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action”
This would cover anti-Tutsi propaganda during the Rwandan genocide, denazification programs in Germany and Austria after WW2, Lex Wotton’s incitement to riot on Palm island a few years ago, and (possibly) Alan Jones’ comments during the Cronulla riots. These events hardly ever happen, and all other speech should be allowed. If a preacher wants to say all homosexuals are going to hell, he should be allowed to. If a neo-Nazi thinks Jews and Blacks are subhumans, I want him to say so. I’m delighted there exists a Westboro baptist church in the USA; I think it’s a sign of democratic health.
I believe these things not just for some stubborn libertarian principle, but because in the long run it’s the best way to a decent society. The Western world has become a lot more liberal in recent decades, and not because illiberal thought and speech has been proscribed. Rather, open communication has allowed us to hear both liberal propagandists exhorting us to be kind to our neighbour, and also illiberal bigots revealing their true hateful beliefs. In a free market of ideas, the liberal beliefs have simply won. If anything, censorship laws and censureship social customs have actually held us back. If mainstream christian groups felt free to explain why they were really against gay marriage (“homosexuals are disgusting and incapable of real love”), we would listen their hateful opinions quite a lot less. Instead, they’re forced to talk in a sort of nonsense code (“marriage should be between a man and a woman”), that – by it’s tautological emptiness- makes it much harder to attack. I would much prefer to have the full extremeness of everyone’s opinions out in the open for a fair fight.
Finally, as others have pointed out it’s often difficult to tell if someone is “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” or “shouting fire outside a burning theatre, warning others not to go in.” Bolt might actually have a point about the social harm of rigidly adhering to a vague racial identity. On the other hand, perhaps he’s totally wrong. The best (only!) way to decide these things is to have a national discussion.