…Burnside, looks like he defends sides, and not free speech. He never stopped criticizing Bolt, when his own ‘free speech’ is so much worse.
The prominent QC said the tweet, which was seen by users of the social media service as a reference to pedophilia, was a mistake for which he unreservedly apologised.
He said he thought he was sending the message to just one person, not his more than 5000 followers.
“I don’t think this is true of Tony Abbott and I apologise,” Mr Burnside told The Australian Online.
“I don’t understand the way it works. It came through as a text on my phone. It was a pun.
“I’ve always thought texts go to just one person. I replied with a similar pun that I had heard on Matt and George, a BBC comedy program.”
Mr Burnside said the comment was supposed to be a one-to-one reply to someone in a conversation about pedophile priests.
Cartoonist Michael Leunig, whose offensiveness so far surpasses Bolt’s:
Bolt comments: Leunig remains to this very day an Age staffer – and, not co-incidentally, a patron saint of the Left. It appears to me that Age editors are quite prepared to have someone of the Left be a martyr to free speech – and to defend that person – but do not wish to go to quite that same effort for a conservative, even when it’s a conservative whose argument is that we should look beyond racial divisions and not seek to institutionalise them. Radical stuff like that.
One of the Aboriginal activists that took Bolt to Court, Geoff Clark also caused offense with his comments after the case, calling Bolt a ”serpent”. That, too, breaches the rules Clark sets on free speech.
Whether you like or dislike Bolt,
this law is an ass and must be repealed.
More: The Age under Michael Gawenda
Here’s what The Age failed to note.
Any apology for the damage done to Pell’s name when the inquiry found no proof of any abuse? No.
Bolt again: Here’s is another nasty and demeaning slur against an individual that The Age published on its front page under Gawenda’s leadership – this time against a conservative historian who’d challenged the group-think on our ‘genocidal” past:
Controversial Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has been accused of plagiarism by one of his critics, La Trobe University professor Robert Manne.
Here’s what The Age then had to publish, after discovering the smear was baseless:
But yesterday, after reading Windschuttle’s book, Alexandra recanted with a letter to The Age: “I have now looked over Windschuttle’s book, where extensive referencing to the sources for the relevant factual claims is to be found. Therefore, I apologise unreservedly to Keith Windschuttle for making the incorrect claim that he had not provided adequate referencing for such factual claims, and for any adverse inferences concerning his professional integrity that might have been made on the basis of that claim.”
It strikes me that one side of the ideological debate is held to far more punitive standards than the other, and is far less likely to find an editor willing to publish them. It also strikes me that some classes of people are able to be abused with far greater impunity than others, and have far fewer laws to protect them.
Hypocrisy abounds. So does being offensive.