Andrew Bolt is a bit confused about the concept of 'free speech'. The 'Freedom Of Speech', by definition, is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or restraint. That part Andrew Bolt understands. What he doesn't understand is that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and is usually subject to limitations like libel, slander and RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

Today the high profile Herald Sun columnist lost his race discrimination case in the Federal Court of Australia after the court found he had contravened the Racial Discrimination Act. And how did he contravene said act? Well, a few months ago Bolt wrote a series of columns in which he asserted that a group of fair-skinned Aboriginal applicants (including activist Pat Eatock, artist Bindi Cole, NSW Australian of the Year Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss and former ATSIC chief Geoff Clark) had chosen to identify themselves as "Aboriginal" as a means of professional advantage and so they could win grants and prizes. He was essentially suggesting that they were too white to rightfully claim their Aboriginal heritage.

I'm not entirely familiar with the details of Australia's Racial Discrimination Act, but I am down with basic human sensitivity and I'm pretty sure that's a subject on which Andrew Bolt will receive a Grade F in the school of life.

After leaving court Andrew Bolt said: "This is a terrible day for free speech in this country... It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves. I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings. Thank you."

Dude. You just don't get it.

Via The Age.