Here's the thing about free speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can not be prevented from saying it. And it also means others have a right of reply
Who remembers Barry Spurr? He was the poetry academic at the University of Sydney who resigned after private emails on his university account were exposed as containing derogatory language about Muslims, Aboriginal people and Chinese people.
His emails breeched the University's Policy on the Use of Information and Communications Technology Resources. Spurr would have agreed to be bound by the terms of this policy as a condition of his employment.
Once these emails were brought to public attention, he was suspended from the university, until he eventually resigned.
He is free to repeat these terms in private email or private conversations. By losing his job at the University of Sydney, he has not been silenced or censored. The university has simply said they don't want to be associated with his conduct.
His freedom of speech has not been violated.
Free speech, like many other human rights, is not absolute. It can be legitimately limited to protect against the serious harm that can flow from some speech such as sexual harassment, threats to kills, misleading and deceptive conduct and defamation.
After the Bolt case Tony Abbott responded to the decision by saying “we should never do anything that restricts the sacred principle of free speech.”
This from a man who successfully sued a book publisher for defamation over false and offensive remarks about him, receiving a significant compensation order in 1999 for damage to his reputation.
In regards to Bolt the court made it very clear that it’s not unlawful to publish articles that deal with racial identity or challenge the genuineness of someone’s racial identity.
To rely on the free speech exemptions, the offensive racial conduct must be done reasonably and in good faith.
Take Pauline Hanson's book
The Truth that argued that Aboriginal people were unfairly favoured by social security policies. This was found to fall within the free speech safeguards as it was genuine political debate done reasonably and in good faith.
Bolt’s articles didn’t fall within the exemption because the court found that his articles contained multiple errors of material fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language. This meant that he could not rely on any of the free speech exemptions.
This extract from the court's decision provides an example
Quote:Mr Bolt said of Wayne and Graham Atkinson that they were “Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (1A-33). In the second article Mr Bolt wrote of Graham Atkinson that “his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (A2-28). The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect. The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article.
And Bolt, a so called free speech crusader, and his ilk have some of the strongest censorship of free speech. Try writing what ever you want on Bolt's blog and see how far it gets you.
Bolt made an arse of himself so don't cry "free speech" when people condemn him.