Climate hysterics provoke laughter from Australian scientists

Andrew Bolt quizzes a panel of Australian scientists on the validity of climate change statements made by then Aussie PM Julia Gillard and Canuk climate crackpot David Suzuki:

An attack on Aussie freedom of the press

The Australlian Labour government's recent Report of an Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation proposes draconian measures for regulating the press.  Andrew Bolt covered his and others' reactions in a series of blog posts.  The titles speak for themselves:

A foot on our throats

Even an online site read just by your relatives is threatened

Media inquiry wants to control even blogs with a reader a day

Finkelstein: dodgy excuse for dangerous power

Finkelstein’s media council: will sceptics be censored?

Why journalism academics are so hostile to our free press

The rise of the totalitarians

The totalitarian instinct in Finkelstein’s report

Next Finkelstein will quote Chomsky and Che

Your right to speak and read freely is in danger

To be “unbiased” would be to print government lies

An attack from the Left on the freedom of Gillard’s critics to speak

Another reason to fear the News Media Council

How dare the Press Council censor even politicians?

Freedom is our best defence against abuse of power

Stifling free speech won’t guarantee good speech

Good stuff.  If that doesn't kill the report, I don't know what will. More here.

[via]

Aussie 'human right' to be offended affirmed

Mark Steyn: Bad news for Andrew Bolt (and most other Aussies):

... guilty verdict against Andrew Bolt...  Justice Mordecai Bromberg’s ruling is absolutely appalling in the precedent it sets for “freedom” of speech in Australia....

... Bromberg’s execrable decision has dramatically incentivized the willingness of favored groups to take offence – and dramatically constrained the ability of mainstream media commentators even to raise the issue. Shame on Australia.

Updates:

Andrew Bolt reacts -

My big mistake: "... The judge has ruled that none of the “fair skinned Aborigines” who took legal actual against me had a choice in deciding their “racial identity”, and I broke the law to say that they did and in the way that I did...."

To appeal against racial division is now racist: "... It’s a nightmare. A world in which things are the deemed the opposite of what they are, and we must choke on our dissent, is what we have come to. ... (Once again, no comments, because it has become too dangerous to print many. And so your free speech has effecitvely been limited, too, by this attack on my own.)"

Canadian connection - Justice Bromberg cited the SCC Taylor decision in his ruling.