Andrew Bolt ... Free speech goes down.

To show there is some substance behind your posts and for th benefits of readers. i wouldnt have a clue about native title but would like to lean what the situation is in WA.

Heres agreat article:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...w-bolt-should-be-punished-20111003-1l53v.html

People like jaycee (who ayou are not writing to)read when provided with somethign to read.

If I said "Aaron C is stupid cause he has said stupdi thigns", I should pretty much expect say me "show e what he's said so that I can see if he actually said anthing stupid or if you're jsut making it up / lying / getting it wrong"

No less than I would expect you to say to me if I came out with a statement saying something that didn't sound right to you..
 
To show there is some substance behind your posts and for th benefits of readers. i wouldnt have a clue about native title but would like to lean what the situation is in WA.

Heres agreat article:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...w-bolt-should-be-punished-20111003-1l53v.html

Native Title is fine.

the trouble is LandCorp and Landgate.

they want to keep themselves in the stamp duty loop by making native title owners sedece their land so it can be re-titled and sold.

but of course this meets opposition, as once you and your select group of families get your $3bil payoiut, the land is gone.

why land release companies dont just deal with the traditional owners direct has me stumped. bugger the titles and giving up their land, just take a 499 year lease out over the existing title and secure your development approvals that way.

you then supply a yearly rent to the traditional owners and they retain ownership of the land.

not much has changed since 1788 in this state.
 
To show there is some substance behind your posts and for th benefits of readers. i wouldnt have a clue about native title but would like to lean what the situation is in WA.

Here you go for some background reading on land titles in Aboriginal communities... it's a complex topic and ill suited to broad brush generalisations on forums such as this!

Federally:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/housing/indig_home_ownership/Documents/ch_3.htm

In WA:
http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Documents/...genousDisadvantage/pg226-253PartBChapter8.pdf

Community or communal title is not native title. IMO the complexities of these arrangements and their joint nature on behalf of a (often dysfunctional) "group" are just some of the big problems.
 
The details..

Eatock v Bolt

Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011)

Last Updated: 28 September 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103



SUMMARY



BROMBERG J
28 SEPTEMBER 2011
MELBOURNE

Something for you to read while you disengage your knickers Stef..
 
Ole Andy's defamation run in previous...

Defamation case

In 2002, Magistrate Jelena Popovic was awarded $246,000 damages for defamation after suing Bolt and the publishers of the Herald Sun over a 13 December 2000 column in which he claimed she had "hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free". Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program.

The jury found that the article was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record of judicial proceedings and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest. It found that the column had, however, been reasonable and not malicious.[11]

Bolt emerged from the Supreme Court after the jury verdict, stating his column had been accurate and that the mixed verdict was a victory for free speech. His statement outside the court was harshly criticised by Supreme Court judge Bernard Bongiorno, who later overturned the jury's decision, ruling that Bolt had not acted reasonably because he did not seek a response from Ms Popovic before writing the article and, in evidence given during the trial, showed he did not care whether or not the article was defamatory. Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. The Court of Appeal later reversed the $25,000 punitive damages, though it upheld the defamation finding, describing Bolt's conduct as "at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless

courtesy of wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case
 
Andrew spreading his ignorance around:

In the lastest salvo in the climate change debate, scientist Tim Flannery says the "errors" Andrew Bolt discovered in his book are, in fact, howlers on the columnist's part.

A WRITER named Andrew Bolt has recently published two articles (Herald Sun, September 28, October 5) calling into question my integrity, as well as that of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

He claims to have discovered errors in my book, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, and that I have "a green hatred of our industrialised society". He also seems infuriated that I have ignored him and refused to say sorry.

The "errors" that Bolt supposedly discovers in my work, extracted in The Age, are in fact howlers on his part. Indeed, so egregious are some that it's hard to believe that Bolt has not set out to mislead his readers. Let's look at five of the biggest whoppers.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/here-are-the-facts-bolt/2005/10/07/1128562994584.html
 
He is a lowest common denominator shock jock.

Nothing more.

He is designed to incite the proles into outrage over the liberalleftyelististsocialistchampagnesippersgayrightsantfamilygreenytreehugger types.

Shame that people who consider themselves smarter than average believe his tripe.
 
He is a lowest common denominator shock jock.

Nothing more.

He is designed to incite the proles into outrage over the liberalleftyelististsocialistchampagnesippersgayrightsantfamilygreenytreehugger types.

Shame that people who consider themselves smarter than average believe his tripe.

...and let's add Stef's french polishers...
 
He is designed to incite the proles into outrage over the liberalleftyelististsocialistchampagnesippersgayrightsantfamilygreenytreehugger types.

yes how dare he incite the 'proles' to question the greater wisdom of self appointed leftie elite social engineers who prefer proles just part with their hard earned unquestioningly - plasma screens, school canteens, insulation, Malaysia 'solution', etc, etc, etc.

If only the world would blindly accept lefties are Gods. No wonder Marx didn't believe in religion. He didn't like the competition.
 
yes how dare he incite the 'proles' to question the greater wisdom of self appointed leftie elite social engineers who prefer proles just part with their hard earned unquestioningly - plasma screens, school canteens, insulation, Malaysia 'solution', etc, etc, etc.

If only the world would blindly accept lefties are Gods. No wonder Marx didn't believe in religion. He didn't like the competition.


Ahh, those good old fashioned lefty social engineers with their crazy thoughts of equality and judging people on their skin colour.

How dare they step into our god given right to be objectionable and offensive to people who look different to us?

Oh, and funny you should mention Marx. His thoughts, and indeed Leninists and Stalinists as well, and indeed the former Soviet Constitution, took a very similar approach to environmental matters as St Tony.

So, in reality, the current Liberal approach to natural resources is more socialist than a lefty chardonnay sipping greenie.

Just something for you to think about.
 
How dare they step into our god given right to be objectionable and offensive to people who look different to us?

But it's perfectly alright to be objectionable and offensive to others who are NOT in a minority group.
 
But it's perfectly alright to be objectionable and offensive to others who are NOT in a minority group.

Is it really sunfish or is it people behaving like people even thogh their behaviour is wrong ?? IS there any such law which allows minorities to slag off the majority ? Cause I've never seen it........

Do you actually believe what you said ?


holy sheet no wonder kids grow up messed up in this world with our childlike understsanding and explanations of what we expeirence - and then we have the nerve to blame the kids !

dazz was right, there is no point to this thread than to just insult each other, very sad
 
Last edited:
Is it really sunifish or is it people behaving like people even thogh their behaviour is wrong ?? IS there any such law wjhich allows minorities to slag off the majority ? Cause I've never seen it........

Do you actually believe what you said ?


holy sheet no wonder kids grow up messed up in this world with our childlike understsanding and explanations of what we expeirence - and then we have the nerve to blame the kids !

dazz was right, there is no point to this thread than to just insult each other, very sad

jaycee


I think you're missing the sarcasm:eek:
 
How dare they step into our god given right to be objectionable and offensive to people who look different to us?

Yes, people who take up the Left's given right to risk their lives traveling here in a leaky boat to live amongst us offensive types must be stark raving mad.

And how dare we point out the Left has no rights of its own to give, due to a paucity of get off your a$$ entrepreneurial spirit, but has to create them with other people's money.

As far as I'm concerned, Lefties are free to give all of their hard earned to pay for a more Western std of living for as many of the world's 5 billion developing nation citizens as they can afford to. Just keep your idol hands off others' mulah.

You lefties need to wake up and realize exploiting the hard work of others by taking their money to compensate your feelings of guilt and helplessness is pointless. You'll still be miserable, under-productive, and wanting to take more.

You'll still be thinking how can I grab more of everyone else's hard earned, rather than thinking how I can make more of my own to stop the planet from exploding.
 
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 VERY wrong was a major factor in the court finding against him.

It has nothing at all to do with free speech. Bolt had apparently been silenced, but he had a 1500 woprd article in the paper last week, followed by an editorial from his employer. Funny silence. He was also 'silenced' on his radio show, and also on his TV show.

When you look at the facts, and remove all the distortion it comes down to this. If you don't want to be sued, then, in the words of our soon to be ex-PM, "Don't write crap". And get your facts right.

Pretty simple, really.
 
The Sydney Morning Herald called him the "Lying Dutchman". So "Yes" you can be "objectionable and offensive" to non-blacks. Is this not racist?
 
Back
Top