Eatock vs Andrew Bolt and Herald @ Weekly Times

Eatock vs Andrew Bolt and Herald @ Weekly Times:

Not an attack on Free Speech.

Although I am constrained from discussing this case in detail until after the Judge gives his ruling, I think it is OK for me to make some general comments

This action has been taken under the Racial Villification Act.  It is not a class action as there are no financial remedies available to me if I win this case (and of course I expect to win) and I am the sole litigant.  All other Aboriginal participants are present as witnesses to confirm that they also have been offended and insulted by the original Bolt articles and that my being offended was a reasonable response that was foreseen and expected by both Bolt and his publisher.

My witnesses may, if they so choose, take Bolt and HWT to court at a later date on the issue of ”Defamation”. Such witnesses can only benefit if they can establish that Bolt’s comments about each individual person were not just derogatory and insulting but that they also have, or can be expected to have, a negative impact on the current or future earning capacity of those people he attacked..

“Defamation” is not and never has been an option for me;

·  I am an age pensioner and at the age of  73 I have no potential earning capacity, so I have no potential earnings to defend.

·  I live in a one-bedroom Department of Housing unit and I do not own a car. I have no property or financial reserves to convert to the down payment of about $130,000 needed in order to commence a Defamation action.

·  Defamation cases are hard to win and are too risky for “pro bono” legal work where the legal team can only expect to be paid if they win a case

·  Should I loose a Defamation case I would then be liable for the costs of the defendants’ legal team, which could be much higher than my own costs.

·  Defamation has nothing to do with truth and veracity.  A thing may be true and still besmirch the reputation of a person if it was previously not generally known.

·  Defamation is an action that is of possible benefit only to those rich enough to be able to afford such a huge gamble.

“Freedom of speech” is not the issue either. Unlike in the U.S., Australia does not have any guarantee of Free Speech in the constitution.  Our use of language is constrained on all sides.  We may not swear in a public place where we may give offence to others. You can be arrested for offending public morality by the written or spoken word.  If you stand on a soapbox outside your own door the police can move you on or arrest you for being a public nuisance,

You do, of course, have the freedom to have your opinions known by writing letters to the editor of newspapers and magazines, but those editors have the freedom to refuse to publish your letters, should they so choose.

Journalists kike Andrew Bolt have almost unlimited power over ordinary people because they have almost unlimited access to print media (and sometimes even radio and television) compared to my own powerlessness.

Mr Bolt still has the freedom to think and say what he likes.  His only constraint is that he may not select a particular racial group, or members of that group, in order to deliberately

and maliciously besmirch the character and reputation of that person or group.  Well, this is my interpretation, not a literal extract from the Racial Vilification Act.

But the final judgement in “Pat Eatock vs Andrew Bolt and HWT” will determine exactly how the Act should be applied.