Freedom of speech and racial vilification in Australia: ‘The Bolt case’ in public discourse

Abstract

This article examines the public discourse that emerged in the aftermath of the 2011 decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Eatock v Bolt. We characterise the narrative of ‘the Bolt case’ as a ‘mobilising discourse’ that countered rather than echoed the decision itself. This discourse had three main messages: encouraging scepticism about the authenticity of fair-skinned Aboriginal persons and judgment by non-Aboriginal persons about the legitimacy of Aboriginal identity according to skin colour; questioning the legitimacy of racial vilification laws and strengthening a libertarian conception of freedom of speech. We explain how such a contrary discourse became dominant in the wake of a successful racial vilification action and consider the implications of these events.

本文研究了2011年澳大利亚联邦法庭就伊脱克诉博尔特案做出判决后的公众议论。博尔特案的叙事属于“动员话语”，是对判决的反弹而非反响。该话语主要包括三个信息：鼓励对浅肤色原住人士的真实性的质疑，鼓励由非原住人士根据肤色判定原住民身份的合法性；质疑种族诽谤法的合理性；支持言论自由的观念。笔者解释了何以这种矛盾的话语盛行于一次成功的种族诽谤行动之后，并讨论了这些事件的影响。

Keywords:

• anti-discrimination legislation
• Australian politics
• discourse
• hate speech
• racial discrimination
• vilification

Notes

¹In this article, we use the terms ‘hate speech’ and ‘vilification’ interchangeably.

² Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505.

³ Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505.

⁴ Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505, 508.

⁵ Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505, 601–02.

⁶They were Pat Eatock, Larissa Behrendt, Geoff Clark, Bindi Cole, Anita Heiss, Mark McMillan, Wayne Atkinson, Leeane Enoch, and Graham Atkinson.

⁷This misrepresentation of the nature of the regulatory approach was evident before Bromberg's decision was handed down (Thampapillai 2011).

⁸ Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505, 600.

⁹Cited in Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505, 561.

¹⁰ Eatock v Bolt (2011) FCA 1103, (296).

¹¹ Toben v Jones (2003) FCAFC 137.

¹² Scully v Jones (2002) FCA 1396.

¹³ Coleman v Power (2004) 2201 CLR 1. Compare Heydon J at (324) and Kirby J at (239).

¹⁴ Eatock v Bolt (2011) 283 ALR 505, 590.