Bolt Guilty!
Ex ALP candidate and High Court judge, Justice Mordecai Bromberg finds Bolt guilty of offending ALP, Greens and light skinned aborigines.
I presume Bolt will now appeal and we will have a debate about the Racial Discrimination Act that in this case simply discriminates against freedom of speech.
I also presume that someone will take similar action to call the Greens to order for calling Broome aborigines who support the James Point Gas hub “Coconuts” (black on the outside and white inside) – now that’s racial discrimination!
Waiting….waiting….
Facebook
Twitter
Bromberg does not realise that when he diminished Bolt’s freedom of speech, he diminished his own.
But then, to be a Labor candidate is to be a would-be totalitarian.
I’m told Bromberg has often said in private that he despises Bolt and his blog.
Just revenge from the dissolute…
Won’t make an iota of difference at the next election though.
Kev
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 – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html
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 – http://1735099.blogspot.com/2011/09/handson-what.html
He also lacks a sense of humour.
PeterW – “Just revenge from the dissolute…”
An ex-AFL footballer, successful barrister and Senior Counsel and Federal Court judge is vengeful and dissolute? Only in your strange world. Bromberg was simply doing his job.
By the way, Federal court judges aren’t elected….
Do you want a list of dissolute AFL footballs?
Of Dissolute and crooked Barristers?
Of dissolute and disgraced Fed Court Judges?
Judges aren’t elected [more’s the pity] but some of them have tried [and failed] to get elected otherwise and were rewarded for their failure.
“…his fact-checking non-existent…”
Hilarious coming from you 17 bobby red-herring.
“An ex-AFL footballer, successful barrister and Senior Counsel and Federal Court judge is vengeful and dissolute?”
You said it…
OH MY GOD! He’s an ex-AFL footballer too – wow. Okay all’s well then.
Oddly you forget to mention he’s a failed Labor Party candidate and therefore a member of the dissolute left. Andrew Bolt is a member of Bobby Brown’s “hate media”. He is extremely adept at ridiculing the piss poor Rudd/Gillard/Brown government, the ALP, Greens and nut job left in general.
The left and its camp followers despise him for his pointed criticism of their holy of holies like so-called “climate-disruption” and sundry other worthless causes popular with Age scribblers. So it’s not surprising a failed ALP candidate would harbour such resentment too, just like you 17 bobby red-herring. The evidence of your petty hatred of Andrew Bolt is shown in your childish “I ought to know…” blog for all the world to see and pity. Oh dear, did Andy’s nasty moderators dismiss your supercilious post and consign it to the reject folder – it was so witty too.
What’s really pitiful though is that you thought your pedant’s post was so clever you screen-grabbed it before you posted it. What a wanker.
“…his bias obvious…” Andrew Bolt is an opinion writer, he’s supposed to have bias. His writing appears on the opinion pages not the news pages.
“By the way, Federal court judges aren’t elected….”
Really!!!!!! 17 bobby red-herring you really are a fuckwit.
Bolt shoots from the hip from time to time and in doing so his blog lacks attention to detail with spelling and grammatical errors unbecoming a professional journalist.
It is also quite clear that he did not do his homework and many of the things he said about the ‘professional aborigines’ were factually incorrect.
David Marr coined this as ‘sloppy journalism’, and I think he is right.
I believe the Herald Sun will appeal (they are footing the legal bills after all)and the decision will be overturned as it is madness for the legal system to affirm one person’s right to be ‘offended’ by the opinion of another person.
As usual, Peter W resorts to abuse and assertions in the absence of fact. Let’s talk a look at his latest offering –
“Just revenge from the dissolute…”
Dissolute – “Lacking moral restraint; indulging in sensual pleasures or vices”.
Strange then, that Bromberg demonstrated sufficient discipline and self restraint to succeed in a sport that requires fitness and dedication. He also showed enough determination and hard work to pass his bar exams. He was also considered of sufficient standing by a panel of his peers including the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, and a New South Wales Supreme Court judge amongst others, to be worthy of his appointment. PeterW, of course, is far more qualified than these people to determine Blomberg’s suitability. Either that, or he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “dissolute”.
What is thoroughly transparent is that PeterW despises anyone who disagrees with him. If Bromberg had found in Bolt’s favour, he would be PeterW’s pinup boy.
“He is extremely adept at ridiculing the piss poor Rudd/Gillard/Brown government, the ALP, Greens and nut job left in general”.
He’s not. What he is good at is inaccuracy, smear, obsessive preoccupation with his image and careless reporting. He is not a journalist, and never has been. He is a hack, identifying what his audience wants to hear, and force feeding them with it. His judgement is poor, as evidenced by his falling foul of the law on more than one occasion. He has as much political credibility as your average Melbourne taxi driver.
“Andrew Bolt is an opinion writer, he’s supposed to have bias. His writing appears on the opinion pages not the news pages”.
No professional journalist, whether a reporter or an opinion writer is excused bias. Bolt’s bias is so obvious and consistent that his work has no value as commentary. This would be equally true if his bias was on the other side of the political spectrum. In this respect he has an uncanny resemblance to a reincarnation of William Joyce.
“So it’s not surprising a failed ALP candidate would harbour such resentment too, just like you 17 bobby red-herring”.
Now PeterW is into psychoanalysis. It’s all down to Bromberg being slighted (presumably by the ALP) as a failed candidate. That’s a very cockeyed fantasy. If Bromberg had indeed felt slighted by the ALP, he would surely take out his resentment on the party who rejected him for preselection. But no, he takes it out on poor defenceless Andrew Bolt.
What we’re seeing here is PeterW throwing a tantrum because he disagrees with a clear and incisive interpretation of the law. Read the judgement, and come up with a criticism of Bromberg’s view of the law, if you are able.
As it is, you’re behaving like a thug assaulting an ambo at the scene of an accident. Blomberg was doing his job, simple as that. PeterW hasn’t got his own way, so he lashes out at whoever is involved.
“Won’t make an iota of difference at the next election though”.
My reference to elections was to get a rise – and it worked a treat.
And thanks for reading my blog again. I’m truly wrapt that you enjoy it so much and return so often.
Poor ole 17 bobby red-herring high-horse is displaying his usual pitiable lack of knowledge of any subject discussed on these pages. This evening’s embarrassment for him is because of his inability to differentiate between the role of opinion writers and journalists writing for the news pages.
“No professional journalist, whether a reporter or an opinion writer is excused bias…”
An opinion writer is a person who offers a personal point of view. That’s right 17 bobby red-herring, a personal point of view. I’ll say it again just so it can sink into your thick dissolute left-wing head, A PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.
There is no expectation or requirement for an opinion writer to adopt a neutral voice. It is their opinion which attracts readers to their pages. They can thunder, criticize, express their personal political views, their beliefs, attitudes, theories and philosophies without attribution or reference to ‘facts’. It’s why their writing appears on opinion pages, which in News Limited’s case are clearly defined.
17 bobby red-herring hate-media doesn’t believe Andrew bolt should be afforded his column inches because 17 bobby red-herring censor, just like his fellow dissolute lefties, doesn’t like Bolt’s excellently communicated opinions.
‘Dissolute – “Lacking moral restraint; indulging in sensual pleasures or vices. ”’
Yes a perfect description of the dissolute Malthusian left. As you like copying and pasting so much here are a few other synonyms of dissolute which describe the left:
“abandoned, corrupt, debauched, degenerate, depraved, dissipated, evil, fast and loose, high living, in the fast lane, intemperate, lascivious, lax, lecherous, lewd, libertine, licentious, light, loose, profligate, raffish, rakish, reprobate, slack, swift, sybaritic, unconstrained, unprincipled, unrestrained, vicious, wanton, wayward, wicked, wild, debased, vicious, abandoned, abased, baneful, boorish, degenerate, degraded, deleterious, depraved, dishonoured, evil, flagitious, infamous, loose, low, miscreant, monstrous, nefarious, perverse, profligate, rotten, villainous, violated, corrupted, abandoned, corrupt, debased, defiled, degenerate, degraded, depraved, deteriorated, dissipated, dissolute , fast, gone bad, gone to the dogs, immoral, in the gutter, licentious, perverted, profligate, reprobate, vitiate, vitiated, wanton, wicked…” And so on.
“If Bromberg had found in Bolt’s favour…”
That was never going to happen.
“It’s all down to Bromberg being slighted (presumably by the ALP) as a failed candidate.”
17 bobby red-herring fool, your comprehension skills are as deficient as ever. Your knight in shining armour is of the left, he sought pre-selection as a member of the dissolute left Labor party. He obviously felt strongly enough about his lefty ALP views to want to be a Labor member of parliament, as short lived as that career is likely to be.
Andrew Bolt is an exemplary example of the moderate, considerate, accurate and effective writers populating pages from the perspective of the centre right. He is a very successful enemy of the dissolute Malthusian left, hence your childish incoherent criticism of his writing and your silly little ‘Mr Know-it-all’ attempt to correct a typographical error on his blog (which you obviously read avidly judging by the number of beatings you take in comments). Those on your vomitus side of politics despise him and like you are ever so pleased one of their own was able to strike a blow against their nemesis.
“My reference to elections was to get a rise…”
Liar.
“And thanks for reading my blog again. I’m truly wrapt that you enjoy it so much and return so often.”
I held my breath and sanitised afterwards and even though the evidence of your pathetic self-aggrandisement caused me to laugh out loud I wasn’t infected by your dissolute lefty maunderings. I demonstrated sufficient judge like discipline and self-restraint to succeed in reading an otherwise un-read hanky of weepings without succumbing to the bile which surged up my throat in disgust at the evidence of such narcissism, a skill that requires judgy fitness and dedication.
“Justice? We have not seen that today. Not for open debate or common sense, and certainly not for those who need it most.”
The Bunyip says it well: http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/09/champion-verdict.html
And how does 17odd not see that Bromberg was rewarded with his position for loyal service to the Labor party and as a sop for failing to get elected?
And now we have a Bromberg ruling against free speech and a Finkelstein deciding how far the government can go to restrict free speech.
Blinkers are designed to narrow one’s view Kev, and Robert won’t get out of bed without having them fitted.