Australia: You Have The Fundamental Right Not To Be Offended, Insulted, Humiliated Or Intimidated

52 Comments

Erik • Sep 28, 2011 @5:22 am

Man, the Australian law is incredibly broad: doing something that's 1) visible in public, 2) has a racial component, and 3) is "reasonably likely" to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" anyone – even a single person – is by default illegal. To this broad law there are similarly broad exceptions for art, science and journalism, if done "reasonably and in good faith".
Tim Frederick • Sep 28, 2011 @5:23 am

Bolt is “guilty” of writing that white-skinned Australians who are not culturally Aboriginal, some with blonde or red hair, nevertheless self-identify as Aboriginal in order to get preferences under Australia’s affirmative action / positive discrimination laws.

Actually, he was "guilty" of making shit up. Some of the people he identified were well-respected indigenous leaders. All of the people he identified are accepted by their communities as being indigenous. His articles essentially claimed that these people couldn't be 'true' Aboriginals because their skin was too pale. Making judgments about people based on their skin colour is racism at its most obvious, and Bolt has a track record of hating on indigenous Australians.

Though none of that changes the fact that the Racial Discrimination Act (legislation used to censure Bolt) is an awful piece of legislation that should be repealed, the case should never have been brought, and Bolt should be free to spew his vile rants as much as he likes.
Patrick • Sep 28, 2011 @6:13 am

I am no longer playing the "what so and so said is horrible, and wrong, and mean, and offensive, BUT…" game when I write about censorship. He wrote what he wrote.

Soon no one will be able to refute what he wrote as you just did Tim, because he's being censored. Nice people, people who write about ponies, buttercups, and acceptance of self-identified indigenous people, don't need to be defended from censors.
perlhaqr • Sep 28, 2011 @7:30 am

What sort of Mickey Mouse outfit is this Australian Press Council?

Australian Press Council chairman Julian Disney, who heads the print media’s self-regulatory watchdog, welcomed the judge’s decision to leave racial identification open to media scrutiny.

Oh. Well, ok then.
Tim Frederick • Sep 28, 2011 @7:37 am

1. It was your implied endorsement of his ideas I was responding to, not your defence of his right to express them.

2. My point was not that he wasn't 'nice', my point was that his claims were factually incorrect (and in fact, this was a significant reason for the verdict).

3. We agree on the fundamental point though, and I've written elsewhere loudly defending his right to be a dick. But unless you want to preach to the choir, I think it's important to acknowledge when your cause celebre is distasteful. If you defend arseholes without acknowledging that they're arseholes, you come across as an arsehole yourself – and people who don't already agree will stop listening to you. Then 'free speech' (or 'due process' or 'presumption of innocence' etc) becomes generally regarded as something that only protects arseholes. Then it is much harder to protect.
Patrick • Sep 28, 2011 @8:05 am

I endorse exactly what Bolt said as to Mark Rose, the only case I addressed.

I reject, without qualification, your implied endorsement of Dr. Rose as a "well-respected indigenous leader".

Dr. Mark Rose is a laughingstock and a nincompoop.
Goober • Sep 28, 2011 @8:22 am

The continuing infantilization of the people. Used to be that if someone offended you, you ignored them, yelled back, or, in extreme cases, punched them in their stupid, offensive face. Now, you just go crying to big daddy government and he'll take care of your problem for you. Another sign – people who have been told that it reality doesn't matter, and that whatever they THINK or WANT trumps what is real. Case in point – if you WANT to be aboriginal, it doesn't matter if you are or not, you can just decide to be one and BAM!

Infantilization of adults. THe government will care for you, protect you, provide for you, and defend you against big meanies. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm reminded of CS Lewis' "The abolition of Man" or even more specifically "The Men Without Chests".
eddie • Sep 28, 2011 @8:33 am

"Then ‘free speech’ becomes generally regarded as something that only protects arseholes."

Yes, precisely.

Nice people don't need free speech protections, because they don't say anything that other people want to censor.
ElamBend • Sep 28, 2011 @8:53 am

@Tim: It doesn't matter if Dr. Rose is considered a leader in the community; there is something absurd about someone clinging to a whisper of their genetic identity and using it as a full-throated announcement of their identity. And, hey, anyone can self-identify all they want. (in N. America most aboriginal groups are wholly mixed and sycretic anyway) Calling out that absurdity does not make one a racist nor an asshole. Especially if it's to point out that somehow these set asides for Indians (in NA) or Aboriginals (in OZ) somehow always end up getting taken advantage of by white people. Doesn't it strike you, at the very least, of going against the intent of the law.

I come from a part of the country where it's quite common for (basically) Europeans to have some Indian ancestry, including yours truly. And, yeah, when your blood lines are mixed enough it's quite possible to have siblings where one looks very Euro and the other very Indian. Yet, time and again, the rent-seekers and scholarship users I have met, proclaiming themselves to be Native American at [academic location] have turned out to be very fair Europeans, raised by very fair Europeans who had a single ancestor that was in the right place to be put on the right census roll.

If people want to self-identify, that's fine; but when they do it because it gains them an advantage; color me suspicious.
C. S. P. Schofield • Sep 28, 2011 @9:06 am

Dr. Mark Rose may have a legitimate connection to the Aboriginal Peoples, or he may be a complete poseur. Under free speech he has an absolute right to claim to be an aboriginal, and the rest of the world has an absolute right to call him a fool. If he isn't foolish, he will eventually come out on top, at least in theory (the real world is soooo messy).

Under PC sensitivity he has an absolute right to claim to be an aboriginal, and nobody can naysay him …. probably not even dark skinned aboriginals who might consider him to be a twit. So, if he's a decent man with a real cause, he's protected. And if he's a complete dolt with delusions, whose very existence undermines legitimate native causes (yes, I'm looking at you, Ward Churchill), he's protected. Which means that a man in the former position will be necessarily assumed to be in the latter, because nobody can discuss his qualifications without some twit hailing them into court.

Nobody who wants to stifle free speech, for any reason whatsoever, can be trusted with the power to do so. Period, dot.
Tim Frederick • Sep 28, 2011 @9:54 am

@eddie, you've missed my point. I entirely agree that arseholes need free speech protections more than nice people.

My point was pragmatic: as a matter of politics/public relations/whatever, if 'free speech' becomes associated solely with arseholes, then most people will not be inclined to protect it. That means that when governments try to erode it – through the Racial Discrimination Act, for example – their job is made that much easier.

Perhaps an analogy will help. One of the most common arguments against rights protection in Australia is that they will 'only protect criminals, not ordinary people'. We still don't have a bill of rights here. If fundamental rights become associated with undesirable characters, there is little appetite to protect them. So when we defend the right of arseholes to free speech, I think we would be wise to acknowledge that they are arseholes so that people who don't agree with us might keep listening.

@ Patrick, I had never heard of Mark Rose before reading this post. He was not a plaintiff in the case. The post you linked to suggests that he is, indeed, a nincompoop.

@ Elam, I tend to think identity politics in general is absurd. I tend to think that setting aside privileges based on race, instead of people's actual situation, is absurd. I tend to think judging people by the colour of their skin is racist.

If Bolt's argument had that been these indigenous 'set asides' were being taken up by people who were already privileged (which I think is the real point), and that this was a dodgy situation, I would have entirely agreed. But instead he essentially said 'they aren't black enough' in between spouting 'facts' that he'd made up. And that is what I think makes him an arsehole.
Ken • Sep 28, 2011 @9:59 am

But unless you want to preach to the choir, I think it’s important to acknowledge when your cause celebre is distasteful. If you defend arseholes without acknowledging that they’re arseholes, you come across as an arsehole yourself – and people who don’t already agree will stop listening to you. Then ‘free speech’ (or ‘due process’ or ‘presumption of innocence’ etc) becomes generally regarded as something that only protects arseholes. Then it is much harder to protect.

I disagree. As I've argued before, there ought to be no obligation to genuflect towards "bad people are assholes." Being an asshole is not a sufficient basis to censor speech. Period. If it moves you to point out how the speaker is a dick, then knock yourself out. But doing it out of a sense of social obligation? No.
Shylock Holmes • Sep 28, 2011 @12:20 pm

@Tim Frederick

Bolt has a track record of hating on indigenous Australians.

Do you mean hating on specific individuals who happen to be indigenous Australians, or hating on indigenous Australians as a group?

If it's the former, the current case is arguably sufficient evidence. But so what? Bolt has a track record of hating on lots things.

But if you're asserting the latter, I'd love to see evidence of the track record you have in mind.
Tim Frederick • Sep 28, 2011 @12:22 pm

But Ken, you're talking about the way the world 'ought' to be. And damn right there 'ought to be no obligation to genuflect'.

But in the real world, defending the rights of arseholes tends to get you lumped in the category of 'bad people who are not worth listening to'. In these sorts of conversations, in my experience, most people (ie non-lawyers/philosophers) don't think rigorously about whether you're defending a person's right to free speech or the person's actual speech. As a matter of pragmatism, I think you are more persuasive by making the distinction clear. That's all I'm saying.
Scott Jacobs • Sep 28, 2011 @12:42 pm

Sarcasm, like free speech, is an American concept, completely alien to the Australian way of life.

Yeah, but they have apparently MASTERED the concept of Irony…
Scott Jacobs • Sep 28, 2011 @12:45 pm

most people (ie non-lawyers/philosophers) don’t think rigorously about whether you’re defending a person’s right to free speech or the person’s actual speech. As a matter of pragmatism, I think you are more persuasive by making the distinction clear. That’s all I’m saying.

Yes, by all means, let us play to the dumbest amongst us.

I'm going to make a guess here, Tim… You had a problem with the Daily Caller's piece about the stuff Tyson said on ESPN…
Patrick • Sep 28, 2011 @1:12 pm

In these sorts of conversations, in my experience, most people (ie non-lawyers/philosophers) don’t think rigorously about whether you’re defending a person’s right to free speech or the person’s actual speech.

Tim, in my experience most people are dumb lumps of wet clay, too stupid to be molded into figures even barely resembling human beings.

We don't write this blog to impress most people. Most people would rather read US! Magazine than anything we have to say.

Fuck most people.
Ken • Sep 28, 2011 @1:51 pm

People who become emo because I fail to point out that assholes are assholes in the course of defending free speech are morally certain to become emo about SOMETHING I say sooner or later, and I fail to see why I ought to utter additional words to soothe them but temporarily.
SPQR • Sep 28, 2011 @3:02 pm

In fact, Ken, its helpful when they … like Tim … identify themselves to us as being such early on.
Bruce • Sep 28, 2011 @3:49 pm

So why now, Mr Bolt?

We've had this shitty law for all of your professional career and have never had any recognised free speech statutes. To bleat that this is a dark day for freedom of speech implies that this is a turning point, but it is the same as it was yesterday and the day before that. We have inherited pathetic libel laws from England's ruling class and their desire to protect themselves from the gossip of servants.

It is out into this storm that Bolta has wandered, waving a golf club over his head. This climate hasn't changed as a result of this verdict and I won't get too engaged until this has been to the High court, but this was actually a pretty near run thing. I have seen some analysis that suggests that the base point of his article would have survived the 18D provisions of fair comment if he hadn't salted the article with his usual dog-whistling bullshit. The article was designed to be offensive in discussion of race. The plaintiffs would probably have had a shot at basic libel, but if your whole shtick is based on your racial definition (as these professional hand-wringers are) then of course they will choose this line of attack.

They are all terrible days for free speech in Australia.

I think one of Tim's points is valid here. We aren't going to get people upset about this decision and wanting to change our pathetic status quo because the person getting the whack is thought to be deserving of one by a large portion of the population. There's just Andrew Bolt and Danny Nalliah as the profile cases and no one is going to be marching in the streets to protect them. Except maybe me – and even then I'd also like to punch both of them in the mouth.
Bruce • Sep 28, 2011 @4:18 pm

Also the poor man's speech is so curtailed that he is limited to the front page of several national newspapers to express his lack of free speech….

He is such a sook. He is going to be even more insufferable now he can claim martyrdom.

Both of which are unlikely to assist the cause for change to our legislation.
SPQR • Sep 28, 2011 @4:31 pm

Bruce, your claim about Bolt's speech not being curtailed is false. The judge “will make orders prohibiting the republication of the newspaper articles,”
Bruce • Sep 28, 2011 @4:38 pm

A lot of judges take the role of King Canute around here.

I take your point on the article in question, but Mr Bolt has been clutching his free speech pearls for years, not just today.
Patrick • Sep 28, 2011 @4:41 pm

"In the absence of the publication of an apology, I will consider making an order for the publication in the Herald Sun of a corrective notice."

In other words, Bruce, your judge will force the Herald Sun to engage in self-criticism.

How is this any different from communist China?
Laura K • Sep 28, 2011 @4:59 pm

The irony I see here as an MA. in early American History is that yet another debate over a free speech issue has arisen on two continents. This one exists because invading cultures set about robbing Aboriginals, Native Americans and First Nations of their sovreign right to determine for themselves who should or should not be a member of their tribal nations.–using methodologies stemming from forcible eugenics to genocide to beurocratic red tape and bullshit. So I'm with Patrick and Ken on their free speech points but just so bloody disgusted at the fact that it's this godawful legacy cropping up again…
Bruce • Sep 28, 2011 @5:10 pm

I have no knowledge of how communist China manages these issues and I don't care how they do. Are they better or worse? It doesn't matter to me as I won't be living in communist China at any stage I can imagine. All I know is this:

The climate for speech in Australia is bad. It was bad before this ruling and will remain bad after it. That Andrew Bolt has fallen foul of it is a bad thing and it will be a bad thing for whomever gets caught up in it next.

As is often the case, the water around this issue is muddy. Bolt frequently gets confused himself on free speech issues and has used his nationally published columns to claim that disagreement, fact checking or even failing to invite him to speak at an event to provide balance are all examples of trying to silence him. Now that we have an actual, court-ordered silencing on a specific article, it's hard to tell the difference for most people.
elambend • Sep 28, 2011 @7:03 pm

As an avid reader of history books in early American History, I note that Laura K has left out the legacy of the treatment of the African slaves on free speach
Laura K • Sep 28, 2011 @7:27 pm

Elambend, I think that the issues of Free speech and presenting the history of African Slavery are numerous and weighty. I think they deserve their own blog, to be honest, and one line in a comment can hardly make up for that. Though I feel the same about First Nations' history, I kept my focus on Australia and the Americas because A) they tied most directly to this article on free speech and B)I chose to exercise my freedom of speech and acknowledge Indigenous people and what they have suffered in a specific comment.
Rob • Sep 28, 2011 @11:57 pm

Ironies abound in this one.

While you are right to point out the lack of constitutional protections in Australia for free speech, it was a very deliberate matter and not accidental or some sort of example of antipodean ignorance as you seem to be implying. The convention debates showed the question of charters of rights inlcuding a first amendment style right were considered, the convention delegates deliberately chose not to go there because the colonies were deliberately engaged in discrimination against particularly the significant Chinese minority who had largely come during the gold rush period and were concerned at the potential for any sort of broad based rights to be "misused" by such minorities. If you are intersted noted constitutional scholar and former Conservative solicitor general of Victoria Greg Craven released an annotated set of the convention debates ( he also was my constitutional law lecturer so Im biased!).

Which is by way of enjoying the delicious irony of fast forwarding 100 years and seeing what happenes next!

Its also by way of having a dig at your unnecesarily combative and dismissive tone OMG Aussies are so stuid theyve never heard of freedom of speech – well if so you can thank the baser angels of our nature from an earlier time and not as you seem to imply ignorance. If you want to get all hyprbolic at least intorduce some facts occasionally from people who know them – and If you want to have a go at Dr Ross for no apparent reason then Ill call you an ignorant troll for no apparent reason.

As to Bolt, he is indeed a consummate douchebag who is fond of indulging in the worst esxcesses of crap "journalism" to bring unwarranted hatred on people he detests, but alas I too would defend to the death his right to say it if only for the joy of being able to point out his fuckwittery from his own words. Im happy for anyone to defend anyone who would defend him against censorship – but Im sorry your defence of his content in this case suggests you dont have a fucking clue.
G Thompson • Sep 29, 2011 @12:49 am

Hi there Tim, Being an Australian also, I actually take great offence at anyone claiming that because they have been either so called accepted by the ATSI community as one of them (which is really just for ego stroking) or that they are less (and in some cases way way less) than 12% ATSI by heritage (which should be genetically provable) That they are actually ATSI.

And them then trying to obtain monies or other benefits from government services designed to help, educate, and empower those within the ATSI community who are absolutely in need of this.

In Fact I would go, and am now with my writing of this, further and state that those individuals are committing fraud against the Commonwealth, and any Govt stooge/servant that allows this to happen is committing malfeasance at the very least.

If the race card is pulled, as it so often is in these situations, it is only because these people have enough money and political clout (think local ATSI community councils that are run for the fraudsters, hangers on, and egoists and not the community) to actually take it all the way to HREOC or Federal Court because they do not want their feeding trough to be scrutinised and claiming very tenuous if not specious racial heritage is an easy out.

I have no respect for them or the wags who seem to think racism is what this is all about, and a lot of respect for Andrew Bolt in this regard for calling them out on it.
Rob • Sep 29, 2011 @1:18 am

People who become emo because I fail to point out that assholes are assholes in the course of defending free speech are morally certain to become emo about SOMETHING I say sooner or later, and I fail to see
why I ought to utter additional words to soothe them but temporarily.

Thanks for the easy lines Ken. The trouble here is I am not expecting Patrick or you to tut tut about Bolt, or have to go through the motions of righteous indignation. Free speech is a principle important enough to fight about irrespective of the quality of the speech or the nature of the individual. Indeed it is only if I know that the Boltmeister can say what he likes that ensures that I can say what I like about him.

The trouble is the following two paragraphs of Patrick's piece.

Bolt is “guilty” of writing that white-skinned Australians who are not culturally Aboriginal, some with blonde or red hair, nevertheless self-identify as Aboriginal in order to get preferences under Australia’s affirmative action / positive discrimination laws. It’s the sort of thing said from time to time in America about certain “Indians”, by people like, well, me.

In fact two years ago I said the exact same thing one of the people Bolt offended, Dr. Mark Rose of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association, whose face is paler than the one my Scandinavian ancestors passed on to me. (I believe that you can see Dr. Rose prancing about in his robes and shark’s tooth necklace at a video in the first link.)

Fortunately the Australian Federal Court cannot force me to remove what I wrote about Dr. Rose, nor to apologize.

So it is in fact Patrick who directly addresses the question of the rightness or validity of what Bolt is saying – and in support. He did it himself, unbidden, unnecesarily. In fact the tone of those two paragraphs suggests to me frankly that it is this in fact that which has drawn Patrick's ire here – not that Bolts freedom of speech is being curtailed, but it is being curtailed because he is condemned for writing about something that Patrick agrees with. Id go so far to say that is he reason for the combative and condescending tone here, and in fact the reason why Patrick is so livid. In short, the only person who's emo butthurt is on show is Patrick – how dare Australia imply in any way that my opinions in relation to race identity constitute race discrimination. That is the context here, and Im sorry but it sgands out like proverbial dogs balls.

Therein lies the problem. And the fact that both of you drop into the easy trap of using the easy EMO line about anyone who may have a problem with you, covers up the problem of the straw man you have created – I dont epect you to condemn Bolt, but if you want to support his content, particularly when it plays into a large and nuanced debate with unique Australian context of which I am sorry you have given no indication you have the slightlest clue – then expect to be challenged on that. And call me emo all you like if thats the best response you can come up with, but I will merely respond with that good Aussie all purpose insult and call you a wanker who has let their biases show in this case and lost sight of the principled argument you are trying to make.

I have heard for example many people defend David Irvings right to say what he has to say as I would too. I dont think many of them would expect to do so by simultaneously supporting the content of what he has to say without looking like an idiot and setting freedom of speech back. Nor would any of them I think expect to support his content and then respond to indignation by saying that you are just getting emo because Im not denouncing his anti-semitism. Hello – your supporting it, no really the same thing.

And while David Irving may seem like an extreme comparison, having the extreme pleasure of having met and spoken at length with Bolt, I have to say unfortunately its not a long bow to draw. Just substitute other racial groups here.
Tim Frederick • Sep 29, 2011 @1:47 am

@ Scott Jacobs, I had to do some googling to figure out what you were on about. Assuming you're talking about , I'm not sure what your point is. Why would I have a problem with it?

@ Patrick, heh. Fair enough.

@ G Thompson, I am more pissed off that we have special positions/scholarships/funds/etc based on race. Once you have that, I think it's inevitable that privileged people will take advantage of them (not that that makes it justifiable).

The point of these things is to reduce disadvantage, so disadvantage should be the qualifying criteria. Basing it on race is offensively stupid.
Tim Frederick • Sep 29, 2011 @1:49 am

Sorry for html fuckup.
Laura K • Sep 29, 2011 @3:36 am

Um…G? Do you have an issue with how the State of Israel determines citizenship? According to the Law of Return, if I can prove descent from one Jewish grandparent (and please consider this is steamrolling Rabbinic law which says it must be matrilineal) I can claim Israeli citizenship. I am (genetically) 1/8 Jewish by maternal descent (interestingly enough). Everyone else in the gene pool is mostly Irish American. That's right. Just call me Laura MacSterns.–Which is pretty much why I would never pursue citizenship; I do not practice the religion, I have not been raised in the culture. I can understand some of the frustration about what my Native American friends call the "wannabe" syndrome in your comment and other posts here but really? Genetic proof? People making these connections for ego alone?
I suppose trying to describe the joy I felt cooking my family's 100+ year old Matzah ball soup recipe or Seders with my friends who introduced me to my husband is overly emotional for this debate. Considering your attitude towards anyone with more than 12% descendancy claiming affiliation with an Aboriginal group–and, you see, you're going past benefits and even Patrick's specific examples of cultural theft duochebagery, you're saying "anyone"!
Laura K • Sep 29, 2011 @3:47 am

Oh.Crap. I did not attend to publish such long digressions from the free speech debate so I apologize to the Popehat community.

G, I was trying to post my comment at your website but could not manage it–the above posted here instead.
I had wanted to add that I found it pretty obectionable that anyone should be able to say to an entire people "you can't so much as acknowledge someone as part of your group based on factors I thought up."
G, should I burden the world/be blessed with kids and change my mind on the citizenship issue, I almost hope they join Mossad and do something non-fatal but really nasty and inventive about your attitude on their day off.
Rob • Sep 29, 2011 @3:53 am

If the race card is pulled, as it so often is in these situations, it is only because these people have enough money and political clout (think local ATSI community councils that are run for the fraudsters, hangers on, and egoists and not the community) to actually take it all the way to HREOC or Federal Court because they do not want their feeding trough to be scrutinised and claiming very tenuous if not specious racial heritage is an easy out.

Oh excellent G Thomson. Just excellent. So anyone claiming ATSI descent is defacto a con artist and motivated only by greed? And anyone making racist statements about Aboriginals is always being merely unfairly attacked by invidious rent-seekers keen to maintain the status quo? Any relatiohn to Windschuttle are you?

Well done Patrick, this is a great example of who you attract by supporting Bolt's positions in detail rather than just the principle of his right to hold those positions whether or not they are popular. And doing so ignorant of the specific context underlying this particular "culture war" in Australia.

Be proud.

Wanker
Patrick • Sep 29, 2011 @4:07 am

Rob, I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing. I also find your schoolyard insult perturbing, so perturbing that I've banned you from further discussion of this topic. If I'd had a cup of coffee this early in the morning, I'd probably treat you with greater indulgence, mais c'est la guerre.

I expect you, of course, to complain of the irony that I am censoring you (I deleted the 3 longer wall of text comments you left in moderation) in a discussion of censorship, to which I will preemptively reply that there is no irony. This is not a public forum; in addition to supporting speech free of government restraint we support the rights of private property holders; and as a private property holder, I choose to eject you from my domain.

Be ashamed.

Wanker.
SPQR • Sep 29, 2011 @7:29 am

Finally Bruce, I think I've made a correct translation of your several long points about this case: "I don't like Bolt".

Please inform me of any errors in my translation.
eddie • Sep 29, 2011 @1:16 pm

"How is this any different from communist China?"

In communist China, newspaper censors you!
eddie • Sep 29, 2011 @1:18 pm

Incidentally, that series on the scammer has really done wonders for the commenting around here!
Ken • Sep 29, 2011 @1:52 pm

Thanks for the easy lines Ken. The trouble here is I am not expecting Patrick or you to tut tut about Bolt, or have to go through the motions of righteous indignation. Free speech is a principle important enough to fight about irrespective of the quality of the speech or the nature of the individual. Indeed it is only if I know that the Boltmeister can say what he likes that ensures that I can say what I like about him.

That's swell, Rob, except that the argument I was responding to was this:

But unless you want to preach to the choir, I think it’s important to acknowledge when your cause celebre is distasteful. If you defend arseholes without acknowledging that they’re arseholes, you come across as an arsehole yourself – and people who don’t already agree will stop listening to you. Then ‘free speech’ (or ‘due process’ or ‘presumption of innocence’ etc) becomes generally regarded as something that only protects arseholes. Then it is much harder to protect.

I wasn't making an argument about whether or not Patrick's description of what he said, or his views, was apt.

This clarification would probably have been more handy if I made made it before Patrick banned you for being a douche before his morning coffee.
Bruce • Sep 29, 2011 @4:30 pm

@SPQR – How utterly condescending of you. I am capable of holding more than a single idea in my head at any given time.

I dislike Bolt. I dislike Australia's lack of protected speech, our shitty libel laws and tacked on racial hatred laws even less.

I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is and have donated here: http://support.ipa.org.au/ to support Andrew's (and mine and everyone else's) right to hold and express opinions in public.
SPQR • Sep 29, 2011 @4:39 pm

Condescending is my middle name. Well, that's a lie, its "PopulesQue" but you get the idea.
Scott Jacobs • Sep 29, 2011 @5:15 pm

I dislike Bolt.Fine. But does/should he have the right to say what he did?
Bruce • Sep 29, 2011 @5:37 pm

Are you asking me that Scott?

Am I really being so unclear that I think he absolutely should be allowed to say what he did?
Ken • Sep 29, 2011 @6:08 pm

Say, speaking of Australia, anyone know whether they ever got anywhere going after Encyclopedia Dramatica?
Bruce • Sep 29, 2011 @6:40 pm

It looks like nothing further has progressed on the ED complaint once Google caved and stopped indexing them via google.com.au
It remains untested as to whether it actually was breach of the act.

Evony's case got kicked to the curb as it fulfilled none of the libel provisions it was claiming.
G Thompson • Sep 29, 2011 @11:29 pm

Rob: I see you have been struck severely with the ban hammer so I will assume you are lurking
Oh excellent G Thomson. Just excellent. So anyone claiming ATSI descent is defacto a con artist and motivated only by greed? And anyone making racist statements about Aboriginals is always being merely unfairly attacked by invidious rent-seekers keen to maintain the status quo?
Thank you, I am glad you find my comment excellent… oh that was sarcasm, silly me here Iw as of the opinion the Federal Court states we are not allowed to show sarcasm.
As for my statement that ANYONE is by default a 'con artist', it seems you never read my full comment did you, looking at how in context I refer to how anyone claiming racial ties should show proof if required, especially if those ties lead to beneficial services that are specifically only for that racial type. The onus of proof should be on them if queried when a reasonable person would suspect that they might be untruthful. And instead of saying "that question is racist" actually have to show proof!

Personally I refuse to answer any question that asks what my race, creed, or religion is and am in total agreement with Tim (below) in that race, and I add to that religion and sexual orientation, should have NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether you should receive some special treatment or not. The problem is that people expect equality without understanding that equality is for all and not just a select few.

Whether you are Aboriginal, Torres Straight Islander, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Gay, Straight, Tri, American, African, or any other variant of creed, race, sexuality has no bearing on me whatsoever, and shouldn't on anyone. Though if you are an idiot, an asshat, or trying to defraud the system because you feel justified in thinking you are better than anyone else, then I do have a problem with you and will shout it from the rooftops, laws be damned!

Laura K:
How Israel determines its citizenship is up to them, though it restricts them to a minority of humans that will in the long run be problematic for them, since they are not allowing the brightest and best of humanity to become citizens of their country if they want to unless they have a specific trait(s).
That website of mine is an older tumblr site (@alpharia is better at twitter) and comments don't work that well.
As for “you can’t so much as acknowledge someone as part of your group based on factors I thought up.”, isn't that exactly what Israel and all other closed religious or race based organisations do already? They base their criteria on a set of rules. My concern here is when those rules and criteria are not enforced especially when a benefit can be applied to that specific group, and in this instance the person who tried to make sure those rules and criteria were enforced by speaking out out it, Andrew Bolt (who personally I don't like most of his ideas anyway), is being called to task on it via racial discrimination laws.

Patrick: I hope you didn't ban Rob on my account, a public flogging about the head with a smelly trout would of been enough.
Laura K • Sep 30, 2011 @2:58 am

G–not on twitter, and I appreciate your including me in your reply. What I was getting at was right or wrong, it seems that people accord some countries the right to make their rules about who is who (ethnic identity and/or citizenship) "how Israel determines its citizenship is up to them" and some groups or nations are met with derision when they try the same thing. I do understand your main concern was aimed at unfair benefit distribution but again, in this whole discussion of the free speech issue–which is the main point–is highlighting another one of those things we have not figured out properly as a species.
Patrick • Sep 30, 2011 @7:14 pm

GThompson:

I banned him for throwing a gratuitous, and childish, insult my way. In general it's ok to insult me if you're prepared for the response. But it's a bad idea to do it late at night as eastern time is reckoned, because I tend to be cranky when I wake up.

Considerably more than half the people I've banned (for any reason) made their last comments between 1am and 5am eastern time.
Scott Jacobs • Oct 1, 2011 @3:28 am

because I tend to be cranky at all times.

Fixed that for ya, boss.
Rick H. • Oct 2, 2011 @2:25 am

Rob should have been banned the second time he quoted someone else's paragraphs of text without using any quotation marks.