I dunno - seems to me that the response of Andrew Bolt to the foolish "fascist attackers" (whose use of masks, more than anything, will probably be used as justification by Bolt) looked like it could be argued as disproportionate to the provocation. (He says he was sprayed in the face and on his suit with some "sticky liquid and glitter" - some reports say it was shaving cream - yet it seems he wasn't hurt at all by the alleged face spray, given he went ahead and gave his speech shortly thereafter.) Clearly, he's happy to boast about "clobbering" then, adding only an an insincere apology about kicking one in the groin. All good for the ratings of his cable show, I'm sure.
But if the guy he kicked turns out to have suffered serious gonad injury, I wonder what response he would get from the legal system? If I were Bolt, I wouldn't be making light of it, just in case. (Actually, never mind, Andrew, go ahead - I would get more amusement from watching another case of your legal system martyrdom.)
In the meantime, there was probably the sound of Viagra being popped out of its packaging across the land of Catallaxy last night, in celebration of a bit of biffo by one of their own. (Although, amusingly enough, he is not right wing enough for some of them.)
And in case anyone is thinking that I am suggesting he had no right to make a physical response at all - no, I am not saying that. But I think all sensible people realise that there must be an element of proportionality to provocation as a defence. It's in the law anyway, whether you like it or not.