Mr Bolt said of Wayne and Graham Atkinson that they were “Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman”. 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”. 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.
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work
461. It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people. I have not found Mr Bolt and HWT to have contravened s 18C simply because the Newspaper Articles dealt with subject matter of that kind. I have found a contravention because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with.
462. ... I agree with Mr Bolt and HWT that the terms of an injunction should not extend to the publication of articles whose content is substantially the same as, or substantially similar to, that contained in the Newspaper Articles.
463. In relation to the order sought that HWT remove offending articles from any online site under its control or direction, HWT contends that it would not be appropriate for that order to extend to the internet archives of the Herald Sun. It was contended, and I accept, that the internet archives of a significant media organisation such as the Herald Sun serves an important public interest by preserving and making available historical records of news and information... If I were to accede to that qualification, HWT has indicated its preparedness to consent to an order that it publish permanently and prominently, on the internet versions of the Newspaper Articles, a copy of the declaratory relief granted by the Court.
464. I can well appreciate Ms Eatock’s purpose in seeking to have the Newspaper Articles removed from the online archive of the Herald Sun. There is good reason to try and restrict continued access to, and dissemination of, the Newspaper Articles by the public. However, it seems to me that, in the age in which we live, any attempt made to restrict access to an internet publication is likely to be circumvented by access being made available on online sites beyond the control of HWT. Ms Eatock’s legitimate objective would be better served by maintaining the Newspaper Articles on the online site to which people looking for them are most likely to go and including at that place a notice of the kind offered by HWT and to which I will refer further below. Accompanied by an appropriate corrective notice, the contravening effect of the Newspaper Articles will be negated. …
468. My preliminary view is that a corrective order should be made which would require HWT to publish a notice in the Herald Sun in print and online. The terms of the notice would include an introduction which referred to this proceeding and the order requiring its publication and set out the declaration made by the Court. In order to give the publication of the corrective notice a prominence and frequency commensurate with the publication of the Newspaper Articles and to facilitate it being communicated to those likely to have read the Newspaper Articles, I have in mind that the corrective order would require the publication of the notice in the Herald Sun newspaper and online, on two separate occasions in a prominent place immediately adjacent to Mr Bolt’s regular column.
The First Amendment is what lets Fox News blatantly lie in order to push their owner's political beliefs. In Australia you can't do that. Some of us like it that way although clearly most Americans are happier with their system, and that is fair enough. From the judge:
INT. A PUB
BLUEY: Cheers, mate, I'll have a beer.
JOHNNO: Well... yeah, of course you will.
JOHNNO: Well, you have to have a beer now, don't you?
BLUEY: What? Who says?
JOHNNO: The government, Bluey. It was all decided in the referendum, don't you remember?
BLUEY: But that was--
JOHNNO: You don't need to worry about what to drink, or when, any more. The government's taking care of all that for you.
BLUEY: Strewth, mate, what if I want a Jack & Coke instead? That sounds like a nanny state!
JOHNNO: (looks at BLUEY oddly) ... Listen, I think... I'd better go.
BLUEY: What? Hey, what--
POLICEMEN burst in.
POLICEMAN A: Beer enforcers, smartarse! Hands on your head!
BLUEY puts hands on head, looks at camera, baffled and dismayed. Everyone in pub looks at him in disapproval, whispers to each other. Fade to black.
VOICEOVER: The government thinks they know better than you how you should spend your night out. Don't be a mug. Vote No on October 3rd... and drink for yourself. AuthorizedbyJackDanielsincorporated.
« Older For centuries, Renaissance composer Alessandro Str... | What happens when a multi-mill... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt