It harks back to the articles in which the celebrity provocateur attacked mixed-race, fair-skinned people as ''choosing'' to identify as Aborigines so as to gain privileges and assistance that would be better directed elsewhere. Last September, Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that fair-skinned Aborigines would be reasonably likely to have been ''offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated'' by the articles and that this amounted to an offence under s18C of the RDA. Retractions and grovels were required. Sadly for all of us, Mr Bolt's hurt and humiliation never went away. Moments after the judgment was delivered, he declared it a ''terrible day for free speech in this country''. Last week at a lunch with the former opposition leader Mark Latham, as reported in The Australian Financial Review, Bolt revealed that the experience had left him feeling ''very depressed, very alarmed and very cynical about these laws''. ''What does it say about free speech?'' he asked. ''My columns were figuratively burned - that's what it was, it was book burning.''

At a speech this week to the Institute of Public Affairs, Tony Abbott climbed on his free-speech high horse (as Gore Vidal would say, ''tethered conveniently near''). He accused the government of ''state-sponsored bullying'' because of its ''jihad against mining magnates'' and its attack on Gina Rinehart as a ''danger to democracy''. These vulnerable people need as much coddling as can be mustered. To make sure Bolt would never again be offended, Abbott promised to repeal s18C of the RDA. Presumably, he'll also have to prevail on the states, many of which have similar provisions in their legislation. At this point in the process of being serially gobsmacked, it might be worth a moment to inject some context. Neither Bolt nor his paper contested the factual claims put to the court by the claimants in the s18C case. Their claims to have always identified as Aborigines and been brought up as such were not challenged in the court. The newspaper and its journalist did not appeal the decision or seek the High Court's view about the right to freedom of speech and whether the articles were protected by the implied constitutional right to free speech on political or governmental affairs, as discovered in the case of David Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Commission. For Abbott to paint himself as a protector of free speech is risible. Actually, while we're in this territory, it might be worth remembering that conservative politicians were appalled by both the Mabo and Lange decisions of the High Court. They were regarded as the high water mark of ''judicial activism'' and led the Howard government to hunt around for a ''Capital C Conservative'' judge to appoint to the court. Ian Callinan was duly elevated and went on to declare his distaste for the creation of an implied constitutional right of free speech.

Then there was a campaign for an Australian Bill of Rights, which would have given freedom of speech a hefty leg-up. Where was Mr Abbott on that? He was right behind News Ltd's destructive campaign, tooth and claw, to tear the proposal to shreds. For Abbott to paint himself as a protector of free speech is risible. He said in his oration: ''Imagine the reaction, for instance, had the Howard government sought to gag naval personnel after 'children overboard'. '' It was very unwise to go down that track because the first thing that popped into my head was Howard dispatching one of his flunkies to pull Mick Keelty into line after the AFP commissioner told Channel Nine there was a possible link between Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq and the Madrid train bombings. The splutterings about the erosion of Bolt's free speech ignores the fact that the RDA does not baldly ban offensive and hurtful attacks of a racial nature. It requires the courts to balance those attacks with a series of exemptions, including the fair and accurate reporting of any matter of public interest - a test conspicuously failed by Bolt. It's worth also considering that both Bolt and his publisher would have been a lot worse off had the applicants brought their actions in defamation rather than under the RDA. But this was never about money.

The RDA legislation has been a powerful tool for good. Only this week there were reports about a Facebook ''memes'' page that portrayed Aborigines as drunken, petrol-sniffing layabouts. Memes, in this instance, being captioned photos of a very nasty nature. Its defenders said it was humorous, but that idea did not have widespread acceptance. The mere spectre of the RDA saw this offensive publication come down from the internet. Abbott's clunky speech did not finesse the boundaries. His attack on the government's deliberations on the convergence review and the Finkelstein proposals for a News Media Council to patrol journalistic standards shows that he is quite content with the idea that a self-regulated regime, with one company straddling like a colossus the print and pay TV business in this country, is a great way to protect free speech. But then, freedom of speech is a freedom to sprout spurious notions. justinian@lawpress.com.au