-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
At Large
Freedom of Speech on Trial
In Australia, talking about race is now a thoughtcrime.
September 28 was a black day for Australia, a society in which until now freedom of thought has been as deeply entrenched as anywhere in the world. Now, however, a journalist and blogger, Andrew Bolt, has been found guilty of a crime for expressing an opinion.
Mr. Bolt’s thoughtcrime was to question the fact that certain light-skinned people were claiming benefits as Aborigines. Yes, that’s right, I’ll say it again in case you had trouble understanding or believing it the first time: Mr. Bolt was prosecuted, not for making racist or derogatory remarks about Aborigines, but for saying that some of those claiming the generous benefits paid to Aborigines had pale skin.
He was not prosecuted for defamation (usually a civil offense anyway), but for breaching the “values” of the Racial Discrimination Act, a 1975 a piece of left-wing social engineering which the Liberal (i.e. in Australia, conservative) Government, with unforgivable stupidity, left in position during its last 13 years in power.
All the reasoning of the 100-page judgment, which has just been handed down, is not yet clear. One reported point of the judgment, however, was that “What Mr Bolt did and what he failed to do did not evince a conscientious approach to advancing freedom of expression in a way designed to honour the values asserted by the Racial Discrimination Act.”
This does not seem particularly clear. When has the law of any free country obliged citizens to “honour values”? No court should ever be placed in the position of having to make decisions of this kind. The only way I can read this is that it criminalizes the holding of a particular state of mind.
This is totalitarian. Such matters should not attract the attention of the law at all. It is reminiscent of the French Revolutionary Law of 22 Prairial (also known as the loi de la Grande Terreur), which sentenced people to the guillotine on the grounds of a “bad moral character.”
Gary Johns, a former Labor Party Minister, has written that “Freedom of speech has been curtailed by the Racial Discrimination Act; the judgment said as much.”
The court found that Bolt and his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times, contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because the comments were not made reasonably or in good faith. They offended the sensitivities of those about whom the articles were written. Does this mean that courts are now to judge the degree of “good faith” with which an article is written? And if the “sensitivities” of a small group of people are offended, what journalist is going to be safe?
The judgment argues that: “People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying. Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of racial or religious identification of a group of people is a common cause for racial or religious tension. A slur upon the racial legitimacy of a group of people is just as, if not more, destructive of racial tolerance than a slur directed at the real or imagined practices or traits of those people.”
This is weird. The politically-correct have spent a great deal of effort trying to expunge the concept of “race.” There are many arguments along the lines that “race” cannot really be defined. Now political correctness seems to be resurrecting it. The last time I heard talk about “racial legitimacy” was… well, you know when it was.
I am not unusual among Australians in having a mixture in my ancestry — in my case English, Norman-French, Ulster Scots and Italian. I could go further and it would get more complicated. Can I now haul before the criminal courts anyone who denies this?
Journalists often make too much of both the importance and the perils of their occupation. In showing “bravery” they seldom run risks even remotely comparable to those which policemen, fire-fighters, or soldiers take every day. Nonetheless, cases like this do serve to remind us that free speech does matter, and it is under constant threat. Annoying as a free press can be, it is a good deal better than the alternative.
The last piece I wrote for TAS on Australian politics was also to do with the freedom and independence of the press. I wrote on Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s attack on and vague threats against the Murdoch Press, which has been a critic of the government, particularly of the proposed tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. This, despite dissent by scientists and economists, seems to be a personal obsession of the Prime Minister’s.
Since then, a Government enquiry into the press has been announced, with the Murdoch press obviously in the cross-hairs. Unless the Bolt case is overturned on appeal, it seems freedom of the press in Australia is facing a pincer-movement attack from the Federal Government and the courts. One must try to take heart from Gary Johns’s demand that Opposition leader Tony Abbott take action as soon as he wins government: “Nothing is more sacred than free speech. Tony Abbott must repeal the offending provisions. He should start drafting now, flush out the freedom-loving Labor members, stand them up and have them counted.”
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/05/freedom-of-speech-on-trial
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike D.| 10.5.11 @ 7:39AM
George Orwell, Nuff said.
Harry the Horrible| 10.5.11 @ 9:33AM
Sounds more like Franz Kafka, actually.
USSAlabama| 10.5.11 @ 2:35PM
Sounds to me like a law used to 'convict' someone for using the word 'Aborigine'. Does it work in reverse?
Do they have 'code-words' to use instead of saying -that- word?
How could a man say that it looks like fraud may be being committed? Just leave out the details?
Good luck, Australia! I hope you figure out how to vote, unless you all like that kind of thing.
Lee Ghume| 10.5.11 @ 8:17AM
Mr. Coleblatch is just sore that he could not find any Abo blood in his heritage so he could collect a bunch of $$$Au.
Redstateboy| 10.5.11 @ 8:36AM
Mr F'd'up last name.. your attempt at humor, if that's what it was, I must inform was sadly off the mark.
Dan Hirsch| 10.5.11 @ 9:22AM
Rsb;
He might be a "pea brain."
And LeGume, it sounds like Mr. Colebatch is not particularly upset about not getting aboriginal funds, I think, he might just be worried that his government wants to shut down a free press. Which would include our little sewing circle in here at AS...
Then we'd all have to bay at the moon to relieve this pressure...or clean our guns.
DTOM
Moe Blotz| 10.5.11 @ 10:28AM
Also Lee Ghume may be a little bit nuts.
play nice| 10.5.11 @ 1:46PM
HA!
Buck Ofama| 10.6.11 @ 11:10AM
Agree. Like these USA assh0les that claim they are part Indian. All about money.
WARE MY GUBMIN CHEK? NO MUH SAYN?
NOW HOO DAT SOUNS LAHK? WUSUP?
RND| 10.6.11 @ 1:04PM
This is no joke. It is either Oklahoma State U. or Univ. of Oklahamo. Sorry, I do not recall which one.
Time period: Mid 1990's.
Social gathering involving people from many walks of life. At our dinner table a reasonably well dressed single male. He looks fit, healthy. Turns out he is a US Army lieutenant.
He adds his two cents when the topic of costs of and affording college comes up. He states that he just simply checked "Native American" on some financial aid documentation and then received money each semester for his final six semesters. He nearly gufawed loudly about how this was so easy to do, no one checked anything, and it left him extra cash for partying, a car, road trips, dating.
The young lieutenant so openly and foolishly speaking these words looked 100% Swedish Scandinavian.
When my jaw dropped at this fellow so openly admiting his failed integrity, he merely shrugged his shoulders and kept eating.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.5.11 @ 8:32AM
Can anyone name me, another species, that spends as much of it's time, destroying itself, as the CAUCASIONS?
I don't know of one.
Dan Hirsch| 10.5.11 @ 9:24AM
TLP;
It does seem counterproductive, but I contend that it was bitching that got us out of caves and into central air.
No small feat, that.
DTOM
Moe Blotz| 10.5.11 @ 10:32AM
Complaining did not do it,dissatisfaction with where we were and our desire for a better life propelled by ingenuity got us where we are today.
Peter of Mt Eliza| 10.5.11 @ 10:42AM
Perhaps TLP, it's a case of ..
When the gods chose to destroy you, they first send you crazy
There have been previous examples of self destruction - it's not just the causcasians, just our turn. Ignoring the clear lessons of history ...
Anita| 10.5.11 @ 12:26PM
Caucasians? species? I thought they were human.
Oh, ghetto violence, fatherless children, welfare, shall I go on? Destruction comes if you are human. period.
rendite| 10.5.11 @ 12:48PM
To Mr. Pennell's question above:
Let's more specifically define that species responsible for the collapse.
I'd suggest: Whites who are in the legal profession. Whites in the media.
Let's place the blame where it squarely belongs.
tsd| 10.5.11 @ 8:42AM
It seems like I should be able to move over to Australia and claim to be an aborigine and get some cash...anyone who would question it could then be called a racist. Lets just skip anything to do with facts, common sense and move right to emotions for all our judgments...what a wonderful world it would be. Liberal BS at it's best.
Dan Hirsch| 10.5.11 @ 9:16AM
Some will. They might be Obama voters who emigrate after the One's promised largesse fails to arrive at their doorstep.
Who needs those stinkin' Judeo-Christian morals anyway. Anybody in Australia who does not claim to be an aborigine is a chump and a sucker. Sort of like being a taxpayer instead of a government employee in the U.S.
Isn't this fun, progressives?
Oh, and progressives, how is that occupation of Wall Street thing working out for you? Found a cause that would stand on its own foot, yet?
DTOM
John Navratil| 10.5.11 @ 8:59AM
It is a small step from criminalizing the offending a group of people about whom an article is written and defining that group to include the government.
We should remind ourselves how valuable a document the Constitution is, and specifically how it defines the people to be the master of government and not, as is almost universal, the other way around.
That such a thing should happen here should be risible. The fear is that it is not.
Bob K.| 10.5.11 @ 9:02AM
We know what you are saying about this attack on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press by the Australian Judiciary because you had it printed here in the USA.
Did you have anything like this printed in your home country?
And, can you tell us what your colleagues in the Press in Australia are saying about it in their publications "down under," and what are your "talk show hosts," if you have any, saying about this.
Or are they all cowering under their computer desks?
Peter of Mt Eliza| 10.5.11 @ 10:51AM
Sadly Bob, here in Australia, the majority of journalists are celebrating the decision. Check the leading left-dominated newspaper from Bolt's home city, The Age, ( www.theage.com.au)
They sound like turkeys celebrating the coming of Thanksgiving
Trevor Woodward| 10.5.11 @ 10:38PM
Actually, they are celebrating how a racist, offensive opinion writer (pretending to be a journalist) got ignominiously done in, not because of his horrid racism, but because he is a sloppy journalist.
You can say what you like, even offend people, groups, religions, but god-forbid you are sloppy in your research. That's when you get pilloried by your profession. And, chided by the subset of smarter winged monkeys who follow him, who are getting sick of his unsightly self-martyrdom.
But seriously, in three days, when they take Bolt down and pull the nails out of his hand feet and side, and he doesn't resurrect, all his winged monkeys will then realise that he is not a messiah but a very naughty boy.
Clinton| 10.5.11 @ 9:41AM
I wonders if a President Cain would want such legislation to protect racial minorities who are sensitive to hurtful words of the past along with their reparations?
rendite| 10.5.11 @ 12:32PM
Herman Cain just revealed way too much about how he'll "play." His spending time on Sunday morning TV talk shows talking about that rock in Texas was -- telling. It was childish.
It seems if one can carve out advantage, however cheaply, through nonsensical 'racial' offenses, one leaps at the opportunity.
Are there any black people who don't stoop to this? Any indians? Any hispanics?
Herman Cain dropped mightily due to his efforts to jab at Texas' governor.
TrueBlue| 10.5.11 @ 5:25PM
Said it in the article about Cain, but I'll say it again here. If he hadn't answered the question while on national news he would have received far more flak and screams of "Uncle Tom" than he did by answering the question. Also, since all he ACTUALLY said was that the rock was insensitive, and did not actually say anything against Perry other than ask how long they had been there before it was painted over, that is hardly anything at all.
He never called him, or anyone else that LEASED that area, a racist either, no matter how many times people seem to think he was doing so. The words have two different meanings anyway.
Petronius| 10.5.11 @ 9:47AM
"Prisoner at the bar; You have just been found guilty of insensitivity and treason towards State Doctrine. Do you have anything to say that that would not offend the Ministers of Expression before sentence is pronounced?
"I hope the Abboos slit the throats of all 'ya f***in' librul bastuds, so they can awl git pissed outa thay moinds when they wannta!" En ya' lawdship kin go git bugga'd boi a packa mangy dingos!"
"Prisoner at the bar; much as I want to sentence you to a long and painful death, the Human Rights Act forbids it. And don't even contemplate suicide as you will be bound hand and foot until we turn you into a compassionate human being with sensitivity and altruism for everyone but the kind of person you are right now. It is the sentence of this court that you be turned over to the Ministry of Health where you will undergo a gender change operation and appropriate attitude adjustment. You will be like us! now is there anything else?"
"Yeah. Before this trial started Yer lawdship, I wrote a song 'bout this an' sent it to Kevin "Bloody" Wilson. You lot mess wi' him an' there'l be a civil war. I can't wait." Mr. Bolt then gulps a cyanide capsule.
It didn't happen like that, but it could have, given the fanaticism of liberal advocates worldwide.
And Mr. Bolt has all my sympathy and best wishes that he can emigrate here once the liberals are run out of power and kept out.
By the way; is he any relation to the playwright?
martin j smith| 10.5.11 @ 10:42AM
This is sorry state but right here in the US of A I heard that Parents are prosecuted for trying to find better schools for their kids --called "educational theft"--There are absurd things happening on our own soil.
John Navratil| 10.5.11 @ 5:58PM
martin j smith,
At least there is a component of theft in "education theft". In the famous case of the jailed Kelley Williams Bolar, she enrolled her children in a district in which she did not reside and was therefore freeloading on the taxpayers of that district. That she would be paying taxes in her district doesn't diminish that fact.
A sad case all around. Really a damnation of the public school system.
Mac Jehof| 10.5.11 @ 10:46AM
Maybe Mr.Bolt wants to stay down under and fight the tyranny rather than flee. If the gentleman attempted to change his aurora to borealis,I doubt the PC police would allow him access because they would frown on him as racist.
Dr. X| 10.5.11 @ 12:03PM
I cynically observe that this has been done by a country that not long ago forcibly confiscated and destroyed all privately owned semi-automatic rifles , requires universal firearm registration, and forbids the carrying of handguns. So the government of Oz may abridge the rights of its citizens with no fear of retribution. Surprise, surprise!!
Like the old bumper-sticker says, "Ban Guns - Make the Streets Safe for a Government Takeover."
Jack| 10.5.11 @ 2:05PM
That whole episode was a farce. The registration od guns and rifles is in huge dissaray because of a lack of funding. So people are listed with other people's guns and some people are not listed at all even though they have evidence they have done the required testing and have a receipt. Does not stop them charging people for possession of unregistered firearms , which are then thrown out of court.
The real criminals buy them anyway. One case they used firearms traced back to a police station..
It is just a method of harassing people. When and if the case goes to court, the registry refuses to give the accused any information, so they try to have a watertight case. In other words, if you are charged, you are guilty, despite knowing they have made a mistake.
That should be illegal, not disclosing information. Just another rotten little trick that not only diminishes freedoms but worse, responsibility.
John Navratil| 10.5.11 @ 6:12PM
Dr. X,
Those whose view of Australia come from the Crocodile Dundee movies and the Outback steakhouse ads would be surprised.
Their DUI limit is .04% and they think nothing of shutting down entire roads and testing every driver. To them, it's all part of the daily routine. It's impossible to fire anyone, vacations are mandated and lavish by American standards. I had a conversation with someone who thought it ridiculous that we "tip" in restaurants - "It's the owner's obligation to pay his staff", said she. I observe the surly service we were getting and suggested that if the staff were working for tips they might prefer attending to the customer than to the time clock (dining out is easily twice the cost there as here).
The popular image was not found by me in Sydney or Melbourne.
Trevor Woodward| 10.5.11 @ 10:53PM
"I cynically observe that this has been done by a country that not long ago forcibly confiscated and destroyed all privately owned semi-automatic rifles , requires universal firearm registration, and forbids the carrying of handguns. So the government of Oz may abridge the rights of its citizens with no fear of retribution. Surprise, surprise!!"
And when was the USA's last mass-killing from a nutter with a semi? Gifford, or has there been one since?
Guess what, cynic, we haven't had a mass killing in Australia since semi-automatic and automatic weapons were made unlawful nigh on 15 years ago. Oh, and the gov't just hasn't taken over, either. This has left all our paranoiacs and gun freaks to die natural deaths or emigrate to America.
That's just one of the good things that happens when we put our people above our bigotries.
Dr. X| 10.6.11 @ 9:52AM
Well, your Muslim "friends" offed quite a few of you Aussies at Bali without the help of semi-automatics, didn't they? They're still at it, mate. Only a matter of time, really, 'til the next one. Then your government will place even MORE restrictions on your freedom of speech -- so you don't offend the folks who want to kill you.
Bill| 10.5.11 @ 12:05PM
The judgment said, "What Mr Bolt did and what he failed to do did not evince a conscientious approach to advancing freedom of expression in a way designed to honour the values asserted by the Racial Discrimination Act."
So, was the wrongdoing not to be conscientious? Or was it a failure to advance freedom of expression? Or was it a failure to honour the values asserted by the Racial Discrimination Act?
No wonder the decision took a hundred pages. The court ought to apologize to the forest of trees that went into the paper upon which the decision is printed.
rendite| 10.5.11 @ 12:43PM
And the arrogant assumption on the part of government liberal bureaucratic hacks is that we spend our precious freetime gleefully devouring (reading) these Racial Discrimination Acts anno 1975, the extracts published since, all court findings related to it, and all the other tripe produced since then.
Then we tack such a sage document up on a prominent place in our living rooms. Nay, we frame it under glass and place it under special lighting. Give it the place of honor in the family den.
QUESTION to Citizen: "What? You don't know what specifically it says in Section C of the RDA, page 59?"
ANSWER: "No. Couldn't care less. I have a life to live and heaps of responsibilities. Take your muck, get out of my way, leave me be."
RND| 10.5.11 @ 12:58PM
This article offends my sensibilities because it seems to very strongly suggest that I should be insensitive to this very sensitive matter.
Yes, my sensiblities have just been violated.
Where can I bring up legal charges against the author Mr. Coletatch and TAS? (I am lawyering-up now!)
Nina| 10.5.11 @ 1:27PM
Seems like no matter how far we think we have progressed and as much as liberals like to think they are much more progressive and better than the average person, then they go and do something totally idiotic like this. We really haven't progressed that much then have we? As long as they keep bringing it up, it will never go away!
Ned| 10.5.11 @ 2:56PM
Just say no. Boycott Australia.
Bill| 10.5.11 @ 4:12PM
So, who these days constitutes John Stuart Mills' "stupid party?"
Occam's Tool| 10.5.11 @ 5:28PM
"Enquiries" in Ozzie are kind of similar to "Independent Prosecutors" laws here, only with much more nit-picking.
This is why we have an explicit 1st Amendment in our Constitution.
charles794| 10.5.11 @ 5:30PM
It is racist to confer benefits on people because of their race...
Trevor Woodward| 10.5.11 @ 10:22PM
Dear Hal,
Just to prove that we do actually still have freedom of speech here in Australia, I am mocking you for that po' white victim trash talk you have just committed into writing. I hope you publish my post even if it may be "grossly impolite", for I am not polite on purpose but to make the point that shows you up.
Seriously, just how stupid are you to blithely swallow the line that talking about race is a thought crime? Let me explain that. No one should call anyone 'stupid' lightly.
Andrew Bolt, being of Dutch heritage, is now known colloquially in Australia as "The Lying Dutchman", to some. To many, actually; now that he is hollering about his freedom of speech being curtailed... from the front page of the Daily Telegraph, from his blog, from his newspaper columns and from his television show. A real Sir Thomas Moore, our new Andrew is. Someone check his palms for stigmata, when they are free.
Yes, calling Bolt The Lying Dutchman is offensive. Even under the Racial Discrimination Act '74 (Fed). But it is LAWFUL. What, I hear you say? Yep, lawful, because it is based on truth, not falsehoods. Justice Mordechai Bromberg found that Bolt had lied grievously about the material facts relating to the Aboriginals that he made his claims about.
So, in short, free-speech has not been ruled against, but fact-free speech has. All this means in Australia is that redneck shock-jocks who don't know how to do proper research will be driving taxis sooner or later. Or they will lean how to do research.... just like you should Hal. Honestly, read the judgement, and then read what you have written to see what histrionic, baseless tripe you have written. Or sue me. I'd enjoy the irony.
Pelligrino| 10.5.11 @ 10:45PM
Mr. Woodward,
Good of you to post. It seems that you are writing from Australia, and that, if so, would be helpful in best understanding this situation.
First:
No, it is not offensive to call somone "lying" or a "liar" if that is indeed what he or she has done.
The following comments and questions follow directly from what you just posted at 10:22 US's Eastern Standard Time.
Okay, you suggest very clearly that Mr. Bolt has been grossly wrong with facts in making his points, commentary, etc.
Well now, if Mr. Bolt has a reputation as one loose with the facts or as an outright liar, well, then that reputation will become more than hearsay or gossip. It would gain traction and taint or undermine whatever his professional pursuits might be, correct?
He'll get negative blowback just because his lies will be uncovered for what they are, yes?
My question for you: Lying should not be illegal when spoken or written as opinion. Right? All of us abhor dishonesy. Or, if we don't, we should.
But aren't there huge differences between an individual citizen lying in opinion articles or talk radio broadcasts versus, say, government employees lying?
As objectionable and frustrating as it is to have to sort through a media person's or journal writer's lies to arrive at truth, it is not a crime, or is it?
Yes, we'd all love 100% fact accurate speech. But, one, that's a pipe dream. Two, it will never happen when people argue opinions. And so long as they are doing it as private citizens (and not in offical government capacities), well, there is no crime committed. Or?
Please reply. I make these comments only knowing the merits of the base article (above) and the follow-on reader comments. I do not reside there and have only first learned this man's name and his legal battles.
Trevor Woodward| 10.6.11 @ 12:20AM
Mr Peligrino, I indeed am writing from Australia where I am subject to the R.D.A., '74 (Fed).
No it is not illegal to call someone a liar here. But it is illegal, under the RDA, to call someone a Lying Dutchman, though... if the caller misrepresents the basis on which he calls the Dutchman a liar. Do you get the difference? Put simply, the law allows redress for those whose rights have been infringed through misrepresentation based on race, religion, etc. But, the famed Australian sense of satire, and our national sport of holy-cow tipping, lives on.
Bolt had said that certain fair-skinned Aboriginals only made their enviable successes by taking jobs, prizes, positions, roles, from darker-skinned Aborigines who needed them more (presumably because they were darker). He claimed that these 'Aboriginals' had had many different Caucasian ethnicities available to them to identify with, but they chose Aboriginality because it was more profitable for them.
All well and good, EXCEPT that when he particularised his claims with 'research' he had got them all wrong. Sadly for him, the fair skinned Aboriginals that he had picked on had risen up society's ladder though dint of effort, intelligence and enterprise, despite having to battle racism every step of the way and without abandoning their identity. The judge also found that they had got to where the were under their own steam. She also found that these 'fair-skinned' Aboriginals had never had a choice of ethnic identities available to them given that they were brought up in Aboriginal communities and had always identified as Aboriginal (which is tough enough)
T0 answer your questions: "Lying should not be illegal when spoken or written as opinion. Right?" Right, but if go further and justify that opinion with incorrect facts (and your job is to check facts) then that is illegal if your lie has been directed racially or religiously, offensively. E.g. 'All Jews are rich' is a lie, because obviously not all Jews are rich. But I am allowed to express my opinion here. However, 'Jews are rich because they are crooks', is unlawful.
"But aren't there huge differences between an individual citizen lying in opinion articles or talk radio broadcasts versus, say, government employees lying?" - no, why should there be?
"As objectionable and frustrating as it is to have to sort through a media person's or journal writer's lies to arrive at truth, it is not a crime, or is it?" Well, big fella, what do you say about lies that incite racial hatred? Should that be a crime in the US? It is here.
"Yes, we'd all love 100% fact accurate speech. But, one, that's a pipe dream. " No it's not. The Trade Practices Act '74 (now called the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) makes commercial inaccuracies illegal; the tort of defamation makes libellous and slanderous inaccuracies illegal; and, the Racial Discrimination Act '74 makes racial/religious slurs *that are based on inaccuracies* illegal.
Do you have these niceties in the USA, or can you legally lie through your teeth all the time, regardless of the situation?
Thanks for the opportunity to clear things up.
P. Arthurson| 10.6.11 @ 4:33AM
You are a liar. Bolt's comments were accurate. so is this report of them.
Jazza| 10.5.11 @ 11:16PM
I wasn't aware that Justice Mordy Whatsit has written in his judgement the words that Bolta lied.
I am aware however that Bolta is Australian and was born here.
So just how is "Lying Dutchman " NOT illegal under the Orwellian Aussie Racial Discrimination Act, should Bolta wish to test it ,proclaiming himself as I know he has done, AUSTRALIAN ?
Trevor Woodward| 10.6.11 @ 12:48AM
Hi Jazza,
No worries, mate. Indeed she (the judge) did:
From the judgement: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/c...../1103.html
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.
23. I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained [bold]errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.[/bold]
425. "In my view, Mr Bolt’s conduct involved a lack of good faith. What Mr Bolt did and what he failed to do, did not evince a conscientious approach to advancing freedom of expression in a way designed to honour the values asserted by the RDA. Insufficient care and diligence was taken to minimise the offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation suffered by the people likely to be affected by the conduct and insufficient care and diligence was applied to guard against the offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice. The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the [Bold] untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth [/bold]which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides. For those reasons I am positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith."
P. Arthurson| 10.6.11 @ 4:34AM
I previously said you are a liar. You are not only a liar but a contemptible swine.
Pelligrino| 10.5.11 @ 10:23PM
I am curious. Do authors sue the legal beagles employed at the publishing houses?
Scenario: You are a book author. You've already been published twice and you've just finished copy for book #3. But you're an author, not Aussie Expert #1 on the Aussie Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 or other minefield-like obtuse laws on the books.
Your book is a political one; you tackle a number of hot button issues.
So naturally your book undergoes review by multiple eyes before going to print and then bookstore bookshelves.
Your name is on the book; you are the author. How culpable are you when the liberal offense industry gets a look at your chapters and is ready to haul you before the magistrates?
What a world to live in. Muzzles speech/writing when one moves pen or keyboard only with great trepidation.
POST American| 10.5.11 @ 11:26PM
----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------
Anyone interested in seeing the REAL face
(--literally--) of Globalism will want to google
up that leaked video of former Aussie PM
Rudd laying it out, on all fours, in Chinese,
to the RED Chinese leadership.
Google -----'NWO--Fabian Socialists Win'
--------------------------BOTTOMLESS! --TRULY!
Dan Mathewson| 10.6.11 @ 6:05PM
I'd love to have a Chinese speaker, say John Derbyshire or Baijao Tand translate this. Seriously dowbt it doesn't follow the closed captioning. Actually, I don't know who this guy actually is.
Nicholas Partridge| 11.1.11 @ 4:12AM
Dr.Colebatch’s latest article was very good indeed, and I wanted to congratulate him for it.
There are now many empirical reasons why Labour politics in Australia are matters of great concern for us all, but chief amongst them is their belief that at the end of the day, no matter what the issue, they will always assert the collective will over individual liberty. It’s in no small measure the reason why they have never entirely distanced themselves from a great many failed socialist causes and people over the years, and why they have nearly always preferred ‘The Party’ over individual liberty.
Very few truths can be arrived at by consensus, although a consensual agreement that a particular person should have carriage of important matters might usually be acceptable.
When last in Melbourne- I live in Perth- I attended three days of the Bolt trial. It troubled me a lot. The arguments of the plaintiffs counsel were simply disgraceful. Since then I have made further enquiries about the plaintiffs and their supporters. It seems to be true that the Manne brothers- David, a refugee or civil rights lawyer himself, and his professor brother Robert, have been public intellectuals who may have influenced the thinking of judge Bromberg.
In particular, it does seem to be the case that Prof. Manne has been influential in arguing that speech which is critical of culture, race or religion is of the same kind and nature as the ‘hate speech’ of Nazism and the Nazis – the implication being that such hate speech led to the holocaust.
It further seems that the plaintiff’s lawyers, and judge Bromberg himself, are and were persuaded by that argument and those inferences. Whilst Jewish people have earned the right to be especially vigilant with regard to anti Semitism, I think that they are quite wrong in linking the right to be critical of culture, religion and race, with the abomination of Nazism. By linking the two in law – as now seems to be the case- all who would criticize certain aspects of culture, religion or race, are now thought to have had all their arguments and criticism trumped by this ‘holocaust linkage.”
Such linkage seems to me to reveal very large category mistakes, and a certain kind of intellectual ‘slight of word’. I though it outrageous that Mr. Bolt was accused of Nazi like beliefs, and I was appalled that neither anthropologists nor logicians were relied upon to clarify some of those very contentious issues.
Much more ought be said and written, and I hope that Dr.Colebatch will be one of the people who do so.
Cordially,
Nicholas Partridge