Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Verdict in Bolt trial soon.


I understand the verdict is due on Wednesday 28 September 2011.

Good luck to free speech.

Bolt huddled inside Federal Court room number 1 with his legal team for about 20 minutes after the judgment. When they finally appeared outside the building, Bolt made a short address to the waiting media pack.
"This is a terrible day for free speech in this country," he said, which drew heckles from some supporters of the applicants in the case. 
Bolt responded with a glare and an appeal. "Can I at least have my free speech now?" he asked before returning to his hand-written prepared text.

Too bad about free speech and the right to state the bleeding obvious, and to question things which appear racist, and the ability of people to identify as a particular race to gain benefit.

To say I am disappointed is an understatement.

Bolt loses high profile race case.


bruce said...

It's already a travesty that there was any such trial. Bolt did nothing wrong by any normal legal standards.

Anyone can feel offended anytime by anything. Rule of law should require more than personal gratuitous feelings for a case.

Also rhetoric and sophistry should not triumph over simple truth.

kae said...

I agree, Bruce.

Western civilisation is being pushed down the drain by PC and silly things like not being able to point out the bleeding obvious.

Merilyn said...

What a terrible decision, free speech in Australia be damned.

stackja1945 said...

Black letter law?

Ian said...

The Legislation that permitted Andrew Bolt to be dragged before this kangaroo court is Federal Law and thus can be changed by Tomy Abbott if he can win office. The Howard Goverment was far too slack when it allowed this nonsense to continue.
I would urge everyone disgusted with this verdict to lobby your local coalition member or candidate to let Tony Abbott know he is expected to fix this as a condition of being voted for.

1735099 said...

This case had nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with vilification. Bromberg, on the basis of the law he was asked to interpret, had no choice but to find as he did. The relevant section of the act says –
“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 group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group”.
(Racial Discrimination Act 1975, s.18C(1))
Read Bromberg’s judgement and line it up against the law –
This federal legislation has been around for over thirty years, (except for Part 2A which was inserted in 1995) and has been left alone by a succession of governments of both stripes. It’s hardly a leftist conspiracy.
Bolt has form (2002 – punitive damages awarded against him and his paper for defaming a magistrate) and he obviously considers himself above the law, given the comments he made after that case which got him into further trouble. On that occasion, Justice Bongiorno made an additional $25,000 punitive damages award against Bolt and the newspaper for ”misleading” and ”disingenuous” public comments he made outside court and the way in which the paper reported the decision. That verdict, incidentally, was from a jury. I guess they must have all been ALP members.
He makes a quid out of vilification, so he always runs the risks involved in that behaviour.
Apart from anything else, his “journalism” is poor, his fact-checking non-existent, and his bias obvious. If justice is seen to be done, he should be facing nine separate defamation trials, with the awarding of punitive damages for each.
The only free speech that Bolt upholds is his own. His behaviour on his blog demonstrates that pretty clearly. I ought to know –
He also lacks a sense of humour.

Ian said...

"he should be facing nine separate defamation actions" The reason they didn't try that on is they knew they wouldn't have hope in hell so they went for the kangroo court option to restrict free speech.
To spell it out for you 1735033, the right to Vilify is a free speech right! The US Courts (The Gold Standard for free speech)have ruled this on many ruled this on many occasions. Now to our shame Australia is heading down the road of Canada and Britain. Freedom of Speech also includes the right to insult, belittle and humiliate. You have this freedom in Australia provided you only direct it at Anglo-Aussie men, pick up any Kathy Lette book if you need proof.
I'm sure I will be joining many others in helping making sure this is a pyrrhic victory for the dark forces of censorship and to bring this legislation under seige! Try and get every radio station you can, to never shut up about people who pretend to be aboriginal and rort the system, always say you are prohibited from telling the truth by the court,which you are.

Most importantly do not allow the left wingers in the liberals and nationals slack off when it comes fighting the culture war just because Howard was slack.

Merilyn said...

Yes 17 we are all fully aware of your distaste for Andrew Bolt you have made that clear many times, however, in this instance I would suggest you read the entire transcript before jumping around and gloating.

1735099 said...

"I would suggest you read the entire transcript before jumping around and gloating".
I read it as soon as it was published. It's a clear and well-drafted judgement. You'll find a link to it on my blog.
And I'm not jumping around and gloating. The two activities are mutually exclusive, especially at my age.....

Mick Gold Coast QLD said...

"Black letter law", stackja1945, in the eyes only of the cognoscenti who see only good in limiting debate in Australia to those things they consider pertinent.

I see one of their loyal footsoldiers carrying the banner for them here, chanting the mantra provided him.

It's now Their Australia on their terms only. Using our money.