Andrew Bolt's Discrimination and Free Speech Case: A Legal Analysis

This assignment analyzes the Andrew Bolt case, focusing on issues of discrimination and freedom of speech within the context of Australian law. The analysis addresses the legal implications of Bolt's articles, particularly concerning racial discrimination and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The paper examines the arguments presented, the court's rulings, and the implications for freedom of expression. It also considers the ethical dimensions of the case, including the journalist's responsibility to verify claims and avoid inciting racial hatred. The assignment explores the concept of incitement to racial hatred, the impact of Bolt's comments on indigenous Australians, and the balance between freedom of speech and the prevention of discrimination. The analysis also touches upon the role of lawyers in defending Bolt and the potential damage to reputations. The assignment covers the court's findings, the application of the Racial Discrimination Act, and the broader implications for Australian society, examining whether Bolt's comments were divisive and if questioning a person's racial identity constitutes racism or discrimination. The paper concludes by summarizing the court's decision and its significance in the context of racial discrimination and free speech.

Andrew bolt,
discrimination and free
speech

Table of Contents
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 3...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 4...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 5...................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 6...................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 7...................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 8...................................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 9...................................................................................................................................4
.........................................................................................................................................................4

QUESTION 1
There are many business ethical issues which are facing by organisation. Business
entities whether it is large or small are facing such kind of obstacles fundamental, diversity,
compliances and government issues. These issues must be identified by manager to operate their
functions in easy manner. As in case study of Andrew bolt, discrimination and free speech that
these articles are containing reasonable steps such as offend, humiliate which is showing
combination of self-identification and communal recognition for aboriginal people. But
according to this several people came together to defence Bolt’s and claimed that court ruling is
damaging all Australians’ right.
QUESTION 2
Yes, Bolt’s article was likely to incitement to racial and ethnic hatred is considered as
crime which coming under laws of many countries. In his article public interest were also served
because it was related with indigenous artists and asserted that public were claiming on the part
of Aboriginal and those persons who are having very fair skin. He also held liable for violating
Racial Discriminating Act because his article was not done in reasonable and it also does not
consider in good faith.
QUESTION 3
An article of Bolt is initiating fair discussion with indigenous people. This article was
related with Racial Discrimination. His article was also offending a reasonable number of
aboriginal community. It unites human being that, people do not discriminate anyone on the
basis of caste, religion, colour, nationality or so on. It is their responsibility to eliminate such
kind of activities because these are not boosting people to do something new in their life.
Further, Bolt published another article on Herald and Weekly Times which comes under the title
‘White is the new black’. This article was hurtful in their attach of fair-skinned indigenous
Australians.
QUESTION 4
Yes, journalist is having a moral duty to check the accuracy of any claims that what they
are making. It is responsibility of journalist that they have to reduce the discrimination from any
place. If they are claiming that Bolt had discriminate indigenous Australian with their fair skin,
1

so it also gives negative impact to society people. Along with this it is their obligation to more
compel when there is a possibility of that they can harm others in racial discrimination.
QUESTION 5
It cannot be said that also Bolt’s article is smeared the reputation of indigenous
Australians people. In this article he did not only grouped to be targets; but also named
prominent academics, searching the rights things to identify indigenous because of Caucasian
appearance. He also told that job reserved for indigenous Australians. Further Bolt also assured
that indigenous Australians with their fair skin would not only choose to identify genuine reason
for them and was not also accusing them from opportunism. He asserted that self-identification is
considered as aboriginal which is self-obsessed and compelled by politics. Australian people are
wondering about that why their fair skin is considered as jobs. But Bolt continued by alleging
that such identification between indigenous was divisive and creating anti-humanist which does
not identifying their European ancestry.
Yes, lawyer of Bolt’s has damaged their reputation because they considered that article
was related with insult, humiliate which is aboriginal people in mixed descent and these are
considered under ‘unlawful by s 18D of Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because they were not
written in bonafide. So this become difficult for him also to conveying people that do not
discriminate anyone. This all things had been because Bolt had given the article on Australian
people with their fair skin and these are creating for other people. Many issues were faced by
other people such as to find out job in new place because colour was dark or belonging from
other caste or religion
QUESTION 6.
Freedom of expression is a concept, in which citizens of a country is provided with a
right to freely express their views and opinions, without any fear of punishment and censorship.
In addition to this, it can also be stated that speech is not limited speaking and expressions of
their thoughts in general public.
In context of Australia, the country does not have any explicit right to freedom of speech
in any statutory declaration of rights. However, there is an exception of speech in terms of
politics which is protected from criminal prosecution under Common laws and legislation. In the
given case of Andrew bolt, discrimination and free speech, Bolt was a journalist, in against of
2

whom, a case was being fired in Federal court for wrongful article posts n Herald Sun blog in the
year of 2009. In this aspect, Bolt was declared guilty for the purpose of failure the racial
discrimination Act. Judges are of the opinions that Bolt's article was not in favour of exemption
of legislation for conduct and it was also not done in good faith.
In addition to this, Bolt has exclaimed in his article in regard to skin colour and
aboriginal. He targeted many individuals and their originality as well. This article is clearly an
example of freedom of speech.
However, there are some circumstances in which right of freedom of speech and
expression should not be used up to this extent. In this regard, it forces federal Government of
Australia to make changes in respect of Racial Discrimination Act.
There should be limitations set on right to speech and expression. It should be imposed
on those circumstances which gives rise to imminent violence and unlawful actions.
QUESTION 7
Yes, I agree with it, that comment of Bolt, in regard to fair skinned aboriginals and self
identification as indigenous is divisive. It means that Bolt has commented in an unfair manner.
As, it created racial comments among public, it is not acceptable at all. Also, its comment tends
to cause hostility and disagreement among people. In addition to this, it can be said that Bolt was
not a racist. He just informed a logic that people who looks aboriginal tends to look whiter in
appearance. But, on the other hand, Bolt was considered as a worst, misleading and dishonest
and also careless person as well.
In addition to this, it can also be held that comments of Bolt was mainly focused on to
create discrimination among people of a country. Also, judges also declared that it is not viable
and ethical to publish information related to race and discrimination.
QUESTION 8
Yes, if someone questions a persons racial identity, it forms racism or discrimination. In
this light, it can be argued that racism is a term in which discrimination among people happens.
It means that in case of commenting someone in terms of his ace and colour, it can be said that
there is an evolution of discrimination. Along with this, racism is a concept in which some one's
identity is questioned.
3

QUESTION 9
In this aspect, the court held that all those articles that were found reasonably likely to be
offended , insult and humiliated or intimidated some aboriginals persons of mixed descent. It is
considered as unlawful and illegal in Racial Discrimination Act, 1975. it is just for the reason
that these were not published and written in reasonably and in good faith as well.
Also, many people came into defence and also includes a defence tat rulings of court
could create damage and create harm to free speech this case lays down the basis of racial
discrimination. It can also be said that the right of speech should not be used in extend of its
limitation.
4