Search results

Because Judge Jughead was presented evidence that they weren't choosing to be Aboriginal, they were raised as Aboriginals. Bolt and the HWT didn't offer any evidence to counter. The judge had no choice. If Bolt had evidence that they were motivated by financial gain, he should have presented...

I think they were inaccurate, clumsily written and unnecessary, but I don't think they were racist, as racism is defined nowadays.

Hi Jo, Just insinuating people were not real Aboriginals didn't lead him to court. Insinuating that they identified as Aboriginals for financial gain got him in trouble. That, and getting core facts wrong. He only has himself to blame.

How has his freedom of speech been targeted? Last time I looked, he had two columns a week in the biggest selling newspaper in Australia, a daily blog on that papers website, a daily appearance on a conservative radio station (which nobody listens to, but still) and a weekly TV show. How many...

Interesting post Dazz, and yes, I'm sure you and the judges don't always see eye to eye. I read it as Bolt decided that the 'fair skinned Aboriginals' were choosing to be Aboriginal for financial gain. He wasn't just questioning their Aboriginality. Those that gave evidence were able to...

Dazz was right. This turns into a Left v Right argument everytime. Stefan, your post above is pointless. Try and keep on topic. Back to the topic. Bolt and his employer printed untruths about nine or ten people, and they took him to court, which is their right. That Bolt got his facts...

I'm not sure one box would have been enough...

Umm, did you read his article yesterday? Didn't sound like someone taking it on the chin.

That's fair enough. Problem is, Bolt got his facts wrong. Of the 9 who testified, all said they WERE raised as Aboriginal from childhood. One pointed out by Bolt as having a German father, in fact had an Aboriginal father.

That's exactly right. The 'freedom of speech' argument is a smokescreen by Bolt and his employer, to try and avoid the fact that Bolt's article was grossly factually incorrect. If his employer had any cojones, they would admonish him for his slack journalism.

Where does it stop though? What if he (or someone else) used a racial slur in their article? Or perpetuated lies? Free speech legislation in the US allows hate groups to get away with all sorts of horrible actions against other groups. Like the group of 'Christians' who picket the funerals...