The Sunday Sledge: Andrew ‘Buttercup’ Bolt

Ah, this Whinger of the Week Award is a beauty. One of those all too rare, all too sweet cases of a deserved comeuppance; and an incandescent example of one who is able to dish it out, but certainly not able to take it.

If you somehow missed it, disgraced journalist Andrew Bolt was found guilty this week of racial vilification over a series of articles he wrote about indigenous Australians in 2009. A finding that confirmed in a court of law what many had assumed for a long time. However, the judgment found that alongside his use of inflammatory language to humiliate a group of aboriginal people, was the fact that he had based his accusations on shoddy journalism. He got basic information about his subjects wrong, and his whole argument (that they had ‘chosen’ to be aboriginal for personal or financial gain) was based upon dodgy research-by-google and numerous errors of fact.

Yet, you wouldn’t have known any of this if you saw the surprisingly precious Andrew leaving the court. He stood, tremulously, the tough-man of Australian journalism, pleading for his right to freedom of speech. The next day, just to show how utterly restricted he was in his right to free speech, he was given free rein on the front page of the Herald Sun, saying he "cannot believe it's come to this" and "I am truly shocked". Inside the paper, he was defended by an editorial and given a further two pages to whinge spectacularly about the "the calamity that hit me yesterday". Oh such a vicious gagging.

He continued: "For expressing such views, in such language, I have lost my freedom to put my argument as I did," and"…be warned: use such phrases as those yourself, and you too may lose your right to speak”.

Well, I don’t as a rule go around racially vilifying people, Buttercup. But when I do prepare an opinion piece, I make sure I get my facts straight (you ever heard the saying ‘you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts’?)

So let’s leave the self-serving hyperbole of the marsh-mellow behind and address the facts. The Judge (Bromberg) said it was important to note "Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people”. His judgment did not forbid debate on such issues if done "reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment". Legal observers have made it clear that embedded in the Racial Discrimination Act is an escape clause (or ‘exemption’) that allows comment on race – including scathing commentary and potent accusations – if based on the truth.  

Most importantly, at no point did Bolt's lawyers deny that the articles had numerous factual errors. When the nine complainants testified as to the inaccuracies in the articles, their evidence was not contested at any point in the trial by Bolt or his paper.They effectively conceded that the facts in the articles were wrong.

Let’s get something straight. This guy has more freedom of speech that you, me, or just about anyone in the country. He will continue to have more freedom of speech than the rest of us through his regular column, TV show, and radio spots. Whether you want to or not, you will be likely to hear, or hear about his opinions, no matter how poorly researched, divisive, or inflammatory they are. Buttercup will still be paid a wage most Australians can only dream about, and he’ll still be feted by certain members of the wealthy elite. He has a position of privilege in public debate, and will continue to hold it.

So for him to come out, that precious petal, and talk about denial of his rights and freedoms is absurd. If he were a man he’d suck it up, admit the errors in his reporting, agree that the people he had vilified didn’t ‘choose’ to be aboriginal for financial or political gain, and get on with his reporting (he has been ordered to apologise along these lines, so this may be coming). Again, if his assertions were true, the articles would have been in the public interest and he would not have lost the case.

Personally, I would have preferred they sued him for defamation. They would have won, hit the Herald-Sun where it hurts, likely received an apology and the world would have moved on. With this case, Bolt has been given the opportunity to play the ‘freedom of speech’ card, which, while a total fallacy, lets him act in the role of the martyr. Forlornly bleating to the masses the grave injustice he has suffered.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of expression, by the way. That’s why we have defamation laws. But let’s be clear, Andrew Bolt retains the right to talk about race. As long as the commentary is not based on untruths he can talk about it all he likes. I’m willing to bet anyone, anywhere, for any amount, that he put forth strong opinions about race again within the next 6 months. His right to free speech will not be restricted one jot.

I support freedom of speech. I’ve lived overseas in a number of countries that restrict it completely, and understand how this restriction diminishes individuals and society. That’s one of the reasons I so enjoy writing at Making the Nut, which is nothing if not rife with strong opinions, biting humour, and criticism of the big egos of sports and politics. But the Bolt case isn’t about freedom of speech. It is about peddling bullshit to suit a personal agenda.

To end with a non-Bolt quote: ‘Free speech is the cornerstone of genuine democracy, but when writers publish disinformation dressed up as fact, lies as truth, slander as objective evaluation and call it free speech, they are devaluing its very essence and betraying all those who've fought for it.’