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. © 2013 Australian Political Studies Association.
CITATION STYLE
Gelber, K., & McNamara, L. (2013). Freedom of speech and racial vilification in Australia: “The Bolt case” in public discourse. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2013.842540
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.