"Like all good things, freedom of expression has its limits and that is also recognised by the common law defence of fair comment. Those limits are there to ensure that freedom of expression is not abused. One of the safeguards against such abuse is that the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege." [354]
That is why Bolt lost. Not because of his opinions. Nor his sneering tone. Nor that his "use of mockery and derision was extensive". [412] But because his "facts" were just not true. Bolt simply fabricated many of his allegations against the Aborigines.
Bromberg's key finding was that "in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts asserted in the Newspaper Articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal have been substantially proven to be untrue". [378]
Advertisement
The judge located at least 19 distortions or lies in the two articles under scrutiny. [Paragraphs 351 to 413]
There may well be significant flaws in the proposed anti-discrimination legislation as presented in the current exposure draft. Hence it warrants serious analysis and fair criticism.
Fear-mongering built on misrepresentation works against this process.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
28 posts so far.
About the Author
Alan Austin is an Australian freelance journalist currently based in Nîmes in the South of France. His special interests are overseas development, Indigenous affairs and the interface between the religious communities and secular government. As a freelance writer, Alan has worked for many media outlets over the years and been published in most Australian newspapers. He worked for eight years with ABC Radio and Television’s religious broadcasts unit and seven years with World Vision. His most recent part-time appointment was with the Uniting Church magazine Crosslight.
reddit this
Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
StumbleUpon
