There are 2 issues here, one that Andrew Bolt got some facts wrong, and secondly that the topical issue that he raised caused some offence.

While Bolt clearly should have had his facts checked, the point of the article was not to cause offence, but draw attention to his opinion that the benefits of aboriginal heritage were being rorted by those who aboriginal links were at best tenuous.

As Dilan has pointed out, the law is similar to the defamation law, but what he failed to mention, is that in the event of offence being caused, defamation law is capable of redressing the issue.

The issue with regards freedom of speech is whether a political commentator can comment on a current political / social issue without facing criminal charges, and whether the strict interpretation of the judge exceeds the intention of the laws as written.

Shadow Minister, when offensive speech is found section 18D offers a limitation on liability, just like with the defamation law. The law in Bolt is not a criminal law. Bolt was sued under a civil law cause of action.

The bottom line is that it is just One persons OPINION versus another - bearing the qualification of "Judge" does not mean that his opinion is correct. In fact based on recent "judgements" I feel the opposite is much more likely. And "yes" the judiciary is on trial as they have been portraying themselves as INFALLIBLE which they are most definitely NOT!

David,

There are criminal sanctions in all states except Tasmania and NT.

The terminology used is that he was found guilty, not common in civil cases.

Print the truth and you would never of heard about it.

Shadow Minister, nowhere in the judgment does Justice Bromberg use the word "guilty" in relation to Bolt's and the RDA.

The crim provisions in the state laws are for very serious, violence-related acts. Bolts articles dont even come near that.