Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition

In fact the defamation option provides an appropriate context for how the media is being threatened by Finkelstein. Defamation has an objective criteria whereby a litigant has to establish that their reputation is damaged in the context of the community and as determined by what an average person in the community would think.

The Bolt case was determined on the opposite of this objective, community criteria. In Bolt it was sufficient that the litigants have their claim based on reference to their own personal standards; at paragraph 15 of the Judgement, Bromberg, J. Says:

"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective assessment of the likely reaction of those people. I have concluded that the assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people. General community standards are relevant but only to an extent."

At paragraph 23 Bromberg, J. Goes onto say: "The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language."

The Judgement discussion of the errors of facts is at paragraphs 380-383. Supporters of the Bromberg, J. judgement stress that these errors of fact are egregious. But according to Professor James Allan they are problematic and Chris Kenny notes this:

"Much has been made of the findings about errors of fact. Errors are always unfortunate and sometimes egregious but in this case they are hardly the central point. Some of what Bromberg cites as factual error is more a matter of emphasis. It is a canard to suggest the case was about disputed facts: it was about apparent offence caused by Bolt's controversial and strongly worded opinion."

Is the Coalition viewpoint about Finkelstein the same as George Brandis’s fine rhetoric on Bolt?

In a recent interview Malcolm Turnbull advised that Finkelstein: “deserves careful study and community discussion”

John Roskam took Turnbull to task for this “meandering and mealy-mouthed statement”.

Turnbull deserved nothing less. Finkelstein is 474 pages of fatuous rodomontade whose scant pretensions to scholarship can be distilled to one word: censorship.

As noted, Finkelstein hangs its censorious hat on the media’s misrepresentation of AGW. Turnbull is an avowed believer in AGW, as are other prominent members of the coalition such as Hunt. Even Abbott has currently been muted in his opposition to the ‘science’ of AGW.

While it is true the Coalition’s policy is to repeal the destructive ‘carbon tax’ the policy statement of the coalition about AGW is still emphatically supportive of AGW.