Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[straight talker]

only she could tell you that ! Could you believe what she said tho is more to the point??

[dedja]

see, you can't do it ... yes or no?

[straight talker]

see, you can't do it ... yes or no?

Dont NO? do you?

[dedja]

cool, so that means you'll shut up about it since you have NFI what happened ...

[straight talker]

cool, so that means you'll shut up about it since you have NFI what happened ...

Have as much of an idea as you do thats for sure!

[dedja]

undoubtedly ...

[Leaping Lindner]

Word just in. Bolt found GUILTY of breaching the racial discrimination act. More details as they become available.
Suffer in ya jocks Blot

[best on hill]

Andrew Bolt - is he a racist? yes he is no wonder the right didn't want to apologize!

shame on him their is no room in this day and age or any age for racism we dont tolerate it in sport, in the work place and in every day life so why did he think he could get away with it in the media?

[Gozu]

"Bolt Guilty":

From the judgement:

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 errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... lt-guilty/

[dedja]

deport the racist bastard back to Holland ...

[fish]

Thread over.

[straight talker]

deport the racist bastard back to Holland ...

and take the lying gillard back to england the same time.

[straight talker]

"Bolt Guilty":

From the judgement:

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 errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... lt-guilty/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/ruling-against-andrew-bolt-will-harm-healthy-debate-say-libertarians/story-fn7x8me2-1226149096809 some other opinions that make sense i beleive.

[Leaping Lindner]

Bolt's case was not about free speech. It was about misuse of journalism to vilify and defame by trashing the truth
- Julian Burnside QC

[Leaping Lindner]

deport the racist bastard back to Holland ...

and take the lying gillard back to england the same time.

You're thinking of Abbott. he was born in England. Gillard is from Wales.

[Booney]

deport the racist bastard back to Holland ...

"There are two types of people I hate in this world. Racists, and the Dutch"

[Sojourner]

Were the articles published in a newspaper? If so its the paper that will be paying out not Bolt, hence why they have an Editor who is responsable for what they have printed. More than likely News Ltd are more keen for the publicity and may well not care less about the actual issue, putting Bolts name up in lights and attracting more of the right wing paper buyers is likely more what they are interested in, that has been Murdochs way to run the paper to the right of politics ever since they got into the business and then feed the media from the trough - which even the left leaning ones seem to lap up and publiscise anyway!

[Bat Pad]

Bolt's case was not about free speech. It was about misuse of journalism to vilify and defame by trashing the truth
- Julian Burnside QC

So why was he charged with breaching the racial discrimination act as opposed to being sued for defamation?

[Mr Beefy]

Were the articles published in a newspaper? If so its the paper that will be paying out not Bolt, hence why they have an Editor who is responsable for what they have printed. More than likely News Ltd are more keen for the publicity and may well not care less about the actual issue, putting Bolts name up in lights and attracting more of the right wing paper buyers is likely more what they are interested in, that has been Murdochs way to run the paper to the right of politics ever since they got into the business and then feed the media from the trough - which even the left leaning ones seem to lap up and publiscise anyway!

I think they were also published on his blog website.

[Leaping Lindner]

Bolt's case was not about free speech. It was about misuse of journalism to vilify and defame by trashing the truth
- Julian Burnside QC

So why was he charged with breaching the racial discrimination act as opposed to being sued for defamation?

Because it was a class action by nine parties, and to sue for defamation would have meant nine seperate cases. Also they weren't seeking damages.