Errors

By Andrew Bolt 

 

 

Were Not My Real Sin

 

 

The chairman of the Human Rights Commission still wants to restrict our most precious right – that of free speech.

But Gillian Triggs at least is frank about the “errors” used to justify banning two of my columns and prohibiting me from repeating their substance.

I’ve argued those “errors” were essentially trivial or irrelevant and in some cases highly debatable – and Triggs now seems to suggest the “errors” weren’t in fact my real offence.

It’s just a great, great pity that Triggs doesn’t then conclude these laws are obscene:

STEVE CANNANE: In the Bolt case, the judge said, “Even if I had been satisfied that Section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.” Does that mean Section 18D would not have protected Andrew Bolt even if he got his facts right? Does that mean the right to fair comment would have been overruled by a judge’s interpretation of what was said or done reasonably and in good faith?
GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well had what he had written been done in good faith and reasonably, he could have made a mistake on the facts.
STEVE CANNANE: But that’s up to the judge then to interpret that, isn’t it?
GILLIAN TRIGGS: That’s right.
STEVE CANNANE: And does that then restrict the freedom of speech of someone like Andrew Bolt?
GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well, it is ultimately an interpretation by the judge…

And which judge becomes relevant, doesn’t it? Or are we not allowed to suggest that, either?