2011•Alternative Law JournalRequires access

Free Speech, Racial Intolerance and the Right to Offend

Sarah Joseph

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

In Eatock v Bolt,1 decided on September 28 2011, the (in)famous conservative commentator Andrew Bolt was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the 'RDA') in publishing two articles in 2009.2 In the articles, Bolt discussed the self identification of certain 'fair-skinned' Aboriginal people as Indigenous people. He used sarcastic language, and commented that many of them had furthered their careers in identifying as Aboriginal people. For example, the subtitle to the second article was: 'What's an Aboriginal artist from the bush to think when he or she sees yet another white man lope off with a prize originally meant to inspire blacks'? He labelled one person 'a professional Aborigine'. Many of his factual assertions, for example regarding the heritage of the named people and the time at which they began identifying as Aboriginal, were wrong. He did not contact any of the named persons prior to writing about them. He queried why the named persons did not publicly and simultaneously identify with other parts of their ethnic heritage. In conclusion, he suggested that the self identification of such people only as Indigenous impacted detrimentally on racial cohesion in Australia.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In Eatock v Bolt,1 decided on September 28 2011, the (in)famous conservative commentator Andrew Bolt was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the 'RDA') in publishing two articles in 2009.2 In the articles, Bolt discussed the self identification of certain 'fair-skinned' Aboriginal people as Indigenous people. He used sarcastic language, and commented that many of them had furthered their careers in identifying as Aboriginal people. For example, the subtitle to the second article was: 'What's an Aboriginal artist from the bush to think when he or she sees yet another white man lope off with a prize originally meant to inspire blacks'? He labelled one person 'a professional Aborigine'. Many of his factual assertions, for example regarding the heritage of the named people and the time at which they began identifying as Aboriginal, were wrong. He did not contact any of the named persons prior to writing about them. He queried why the named persons did not publicly and simultaneously identify with other parts of their ethnic heritage. In conclusion, he suggested that the self identification of such people only as Indigenous impacted detrimentally on racial cohesion in Australia.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In Eatock v Bolt,1 decided on September 28 2011, the (in)famous conservative commentator Andrew Bolt was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the 'RDA') in publishing two articles in 2009.2 In the articles, Bolt discussed the self identification of certain 'fair-skinned' Aboriginal people as Indigenous people. He used sarcastic language, and commented that many of them had furthered their careers in identifying as Aboriginal people. For example, the subtitle to the second article was: 'What's an Aboriginal artist from the bush to think when he or she sees yet another white man lope off with a prize originally meant to inspire blacks'? He labelled one person 'a professional Aborigine'. Many of his factual assertions, for example regarding the heritage of the named people and the time at which they began identifying as Aboriginal, were wrong. He did not contact any of the named persons prior to writing about them. He queried why the named persons did not publicly and simultaneously identify with other parts of their ethnic heritage. In conclusion, he suggested that the self identification of such people only as Indigenous impacted detrimentally on racial cohesion in Australia.

Key concepts: Indigenous, Publishing, Racism, White (mutation), Ethnic group, Identification (biology), Project commissioning, Subtitle

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Free Speech, Racial Intolerance and the Right to Offend — Research Paper | ScholarLens