Now that Bolt has lost is the law itself on trial?

At paragraph 19 of Justice Bromberg's decision his Honour explains the reasons and principles by which imputations are drawn from impugned speech. These principles are the same in racial vilification law as they are in defamation law.

Regrettably, many of the pro-free speech commentators appear not to have paid heed to these principles. For example, writing in The Australian, Chris Kenny described Justice Bromberg's consideration of Bolt's words as 'Orwellian'. And with that a sound body of considered jurisprudence is dispatched!

If you consider that taking care to avoid errors is crucial to acting reasonably and in good faith on controversial matters then the factual errors in Bolt's article are of great import. Some of the pro-free speech commentators have chosen to overlook or forgive these errors. Kenny suggests that "what Bromberg cites as factual error is more a matter of emphasis." Forgive me, but how is getting the race of Larissa Behrendt's father wrong a matter of 'emphasis'?

From the point of view of an academic who researches and writes in this field of the law some of the pro-free speech articles have been amusing. Had they been student assignments there would scarcely have been enough red ink in the land to do them justice.

Having campaigned against the plaintiffs the culture warriors of the right appear to have now turned their eyes to the laws that brought Andrew Bolt undone. The next chapter in the Bolt saga is yet to be written.