gold_medal wrote on Aug 8
th, 2012 at 12:44pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8
th, 2012 at 12:39pm:
So our laws will be changed just because Andrew Bolt was found guilty?
Who the bugger is this guy & why do he seem to hold so much sway over the Abbott Conservative Party?
There are a hundred different examples of laws being changed on the basis of one event. Whether Bolts case is justifiable or not, there is massive precedence for legislation based on a single outcome or application of existing law.
Remember that Bolt was found guilty of some
factual errors - not the thrust of his article. Thats not the same as wholesale repudiation of his message.
Why does Abbott continue to use him as the example then??
"Hurt Feelings" is the wording he sprouts, is the issue he talks about with Bolt.
Quote:Let's be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable but a "hurt feelings" test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.
The article for which Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's the freedom to write badly and rudely. Speech that has to be inoffensive is not free, just unerringly politically correct.
If it's all right for David Marr to upset conservative Christians, why is it not all right for Bolt to upset activist Aborigines?
The numpty can't even get his arguments straight.