Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Bolt Guilty Of Free Speech

THE news is just breaking on the radio. Andrew Bolt is said to have been found of guilty of writing some columns that really annoyed a few people whose ethnic backgrounds, real or confected, put them on a protected pedestal.

This is serious.

UPDATE: According to ongoing reports, ex-Labor candidate and Labor-appointed judge, Mordy Bromberg, has ruled that "the way Bolt went about writing his columns" -- the radio reporter's words --  settled his guilt.

Why is an enemy of free speech on the bench?

Why is Premier Ted Baillieu not cleaning out the courts, putting the Labor-appointed hacks, lickspittles and be-wigged totalitarians out to pasture? (UPDATE: Several readers point out Bromberg is a federal judge. Apologies for allowing the growing frustration with a state Liberal leader to spill into this post.)

Why aren't we pouring into the streets with pitchforks and flaming brands to defend the right to offend the terminally precious?

Why aren't clients of the lawyers who handled the prosecution pro bono taking their business elsewhere?
Anger isn't enough. Take a tip from the left. Get active. Defy wicked laws. Get in their faces.


  1. Wearing a back armband today, mourning the demise of free speech.

  2. September 28 (928) will go down in history as the Pearl Harbour of freedom and the true birth of totalitarianism in this country – a true day of infamy. Vale Australia.

  3. Case was in Federal Court. Cleaning house would be up to our Honourably Mendacious Prime Minister.

  4. Even though this was a federal case, 'Why is Premier Ted Baillieu not cleaning out the courts, putting the Labor-appointed hacks, lickspittles and be-wigged totalitarians out to pasture?' anyway?

  5. "ex-Labor candidate and Labor-appointed judge"

    Grounds for an appeal surely. Any judge with political affiliations in a case such as this should have recused himself.

  6. A complete and utter disgrace. Now it is official. Upsetting someone, no matter how true the words spoken or written are, is now a crime.

    Thank you High Court!

  7. It feels like the beginning of the end. Once we aren't allowed to discuss the stupid and dishonest things others do, we've lost the ability to stop the long interminable slide that PC started us on a decade ago.
    One can only hope News Ltd has the will to appeal, though with the Prime Minister and the courts threatening them if they follow unapproved lines of thought, that may be too hard.

  8. Not even a premonition. The minute Bolt was hauled before the FEDERAL COURT, it was clear that all was lost. This collective of wigs has form.

  9. "Why aren't clients ... taking their business elsewhere?"

    If you want to win your case, you want a lawyer who'll do anything. Moral victories are just the consolation prize...

  10. "Why aren't we pouring into the streets with pitchforks and flaming brands"

    Cut out that leftist talk...

  11. As the Professor said "this is serious".

    First, Bolt is down and out for the count and next will be controlled/censored media and controlled/censored internet, I suspect, as a result of Bob Brown's inquiry.
    Where has democracy in this country disappeared to? I always thought a right to free speech was part of a civilised culture.


    Track the rot back to the fluffy Lefties who introduced all these nice laws we must abide by. By we, I mean Caucasian Australians. These very same laws don't seem to apply to other members of our society.

    This is a very sad day, indeed.

  12. Obviously the correct judge was assigned to the case -- the desired result was obtained. A truly appalling result. I trust this will be appealed and shown to be the travesty it is.

  13. Sorry to be pedantic, Prof, but Premier Ted cannot clean out courts, and put 'the Labor-appointed hacks, lickspittles and be-wigged totalitarians out to pasture', because this was a case in the Federal Court.

    That said, having this case heard by a judge alone when that judge is a guy who failed to win ALP preselection, acted for the MUA against Patrick and took the case against Workchoices to the High Court is probably NOT going to do much to build confidence in the independence of the judicial system and activist judges.

    This will doubtless prove to counterproductive judging by the backlash.

  14. The Full Federal Court will surely overturn this silly judgment if Bolt appeals.

  15. Thank you Al Grasby. Hope your reward is in one of those exquisite venues described by Dante in his early chapters.

    How about our right to publically expose ethnic fraud? Must we live in fear of offending gangsters? If so, that is totally unAustralian.

  16. Once upon a time Mordy played for St Kilda

    Interesting detail but won't help free speech much.

  17. Keep saving those wine and scotch bottles, Professor Bunyip. I think they will have a future when we man the barricades.

  18. I have finally had enough of this totalitarian Government.
    I donated a sum of money to the Institute of Public Affairs and will urge my family and friends to do likewise.
    What an outrage. The lefties can call real indigenous Australians Coconuts, slur the Bessie Prices etc no problem but offend a light skinned aboriginal or Labor Politician no go now.
    I will be joining the IPA tomorrow we need to stand up and be counted now.
    Please save Freedom of Speech.

  19. We applaud the rewards won by the successful individuals offended by Bolt, as they presumably had to overcome the trauma of arising from the stolen generation. But where are the awards for the successful clients of the indigenous industry?
    And how can we question injustice in indigenous opportunities if we are prevented from doing so?

  20. You can't put judges out to pasture because you disagree with their politics or think they are lickspittles. You can only decommission a judge, federal or state, for proved misbehaviour on the address to the GG (or G, in the state context) of a majority of a joint sitting of parliament. The prime minister, even if she wanted to, can't just sack a judge. You would need to change the constitution for that to be able to occur.

    I agree with the remainder of your sentiments, prof, but you don't really suggest, do you, that the government of the day should have the power to sack a judge by executive fiat?