The Herald Sun has been forced to publish two humiliating double-page corrections spelling out why two of Andrew Bolt’s articles shamed light-skinned members of the Aboriginal community.
In handing down his official orders this morning in a landmark racial discrimination case pitting Bolt against nine prominent indigenous people, Federal Court judge Mordy Bromberg ordered that on two occasions in the next 14 days Herald Sun publisher Herald & Weekly Times must run — both in the paper’s print edition and online — a corrective notice that explains why Bolt and the company contravened the Racial Discrimination Act. Two 2009 articles — “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black” — were found to have breached the act.
The paper has confirmed it won’t appeal the decision, but it says it will lobby federal politicians to change the law.
The corrections will have to be the same or similar size as Bolt’s regular column, which runs bi-weekly over two pages in the Herald Sun‘s editorial section. The Herald Sun will be able to keep the two offending articles online for “archival” purposes but must include the corrective notice in close proximity, presumably below or above them.
A mock-up of what the correction may look like
Reflecting Bromberg’s earlier judgement of contravention handed down late last month, the corrective notice states the articles were “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate some Aboriginal persons of mixed descent” and that the articles were “not written or published reasonably and in good faith”, disallowing Bolt a free speech exemption under 18D of the RDA.
Eatock had sought an apology from HWT, but citing his earlier reasons for judgement Bromberg was not persuaded “that I should compel HWT to articulate a sentiment that is not genuinely held”.
In their submissions, Bolt, who did not appear in court, and HWT had argued against the corrective notice because extensive media coverage of the “guilty” verdict meant Eatock and co had achieved vindication. But Bromberg noted that while most Victorians would be aware Bolt and HWT had broken the law, the corrective notice served “a wider informational and educative purpose”.
Bromberg said the correction would redress the hurt felt by those injured, restore esteem and social standing, inform the public of the gravity of the wrongdoing and help prevent racism.
HWT will also be forced to pay Eatock’s costs, which could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, in a Pyrrhic victory for HWT, Eatock will have to stump for the costs of a directions hearing and trial preparation over a 10-week period last year. Legal sources contacted by Crikey said that amount would be minor in comparison to the full cost of the associated lead-up work to the trial that ran for eight days in March and April.
Both parties made submissions on the judgement two weeks ago and were at loggerheads over whether the declaration should reflect the court’s findings, the terms of an injunction restraining republication, the terms of the corrective notice and the costs issue given the offer of settlement made by Bolt and HWT prior to the trial’s commencement.
The HWT statement released early this afternoon said that “… it is our view that section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act overly detracts from free speech and should be revisited by the legislature.”
“We will continue to engage in community debate and discussion to ensure free speech is protected.
“We reiterate our belief that all Australians should have the right to express their opinions freely, even where their opinions are controversial or unpopular to some in the community.”
“We reiterate our belief that all News Ltd journalists should have the right to express their opinions freely, even where their opinions are clearly based on lies and the journalist has made no attempt whatsoever to print facts.”
HWT do not seem to get it, the decision had nothing to do with free speech, it was all about someone writing an article which was factual incorrect.
I am sarting to understand why the MSM write the CRAP that they do, in their minds they can write or say anything as to them this respresent so called free speech.
No wonder the MSM have and are continuing to lose respect, it’s all about their rights and not the rights of the people. They think they are holy than Now.
Well up them
While the Bolt haters might rejoice this is a sad day for free speech in this country.
I accept that Bolt did not do accurate background research for his articles and that he displayed some poor journalistic standards, but the essence of what he was saying is quite obvious. There is no appropriate definition of what defines aboriginality and to claim one element of one’s ethnicity as overriding others could be seen as opportunism which it would appear was the fundamental element of his articles.
I have ethnic roots which are a combination of Greek, Italian, Jewish, Scottish, English and Dutch stretching back to the 1850s. I do not choose to describe myself as any one of these “ethnicities” even though the family surname after five generations has Greek origins I do not define myself as Greek .
However if my great great grandfather who stepped off a boat in 1854 claiming to be from Athens happened to be an aboriginal, I too could claim to be an aboriginal Australian. It really is about time we moved on from such claims and treated ourselves all as having equal status in the community and not some preferential status based on some ethnic interaction several generations ago.
Why can’t the HWT come to terms with the reality of what has transpired in this case? Section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act is in place precisely to protect those who who do not have the power or a tabloid/broadsheet column or talkback slot to speak back to such attitudes and views that plainly and offensively reduce people to racial objects of scorn and ridicule.
Engaging in community debate is one thing … engaging in race baiting and peddling prejudice has real time effects on the whole of community. Racist diatribe dressed up as free speech should be seen for what it is. We certainly don’t need the warriors at HWT to protect the right to free speech. HWT ought to own up to it what it has been party to here, redress it and move into a space where we can have a debate without the race sledging and racialising of certain peoples. Has it ever occurred to anyone at HWT that Bolt would simply never have his race /whiteness called into question because it is only the so-called other who is forced to endure the racialising process?
Finally, mindful and responsible people do not have a problem with controversial or unpopular opinions … Section 18 is there to call up those who abuse their freedoms to hurt others and take their freedoms away. So HWT, take the bitter pill and stop the faux moralising; it’s tiresome.
We should indeed ensure free speech is protected and that all Australians have the right to express their opinions freely, even where their opinions are controversial or unpopular to some in the community.
We should not protect rantings from commentators where those opinions are based on half-truths, ommissions of fact, lack of proper investigation and an apparent desire to deliberately stir controversy for the sake of being controversial.
People can choose not to tune in to dills like Alan Jones and his ilk. It’s harder to avoid bumptious bastards like Bolt when you’re attempting to keep up with the news via a News Ltd publication.
Or can I have 40c of my $1.20 returned for the waste of space in my newspaper.
Jack Ellis
Darwin