Judge Pippa Sinclair suppressed the boy's name and anything that could lead to his identification.
But in making the order, she said it was to protect the child, not his father.
The judge said if the father's name was made public it would identify the boy, which could lead to his being teased by his peers or feeling guilt about what had happened.
She pointed to a psychologist's report that noted the boy had a close relationship with his father and was likely to feel guilt about any embarrassment publicity from the charges could bring.
The report said the boy had a "strong loyalty to his father and his family".
"He described his father as cool and fun to have as dad. His father was a person he trusts and feels proud of."
He knew his father was well known, the report said, but that didn't affect his relationship with him. Sometimes adults made comments about him, and this caused him to be shy and embarrassed.
"He was concerned his classmates and their parents would think of him as abuseful, which he felt was untrue."
If that happened he would feel "ashamed and bad".
Defence lawyer John Eichelbaum told the court the offending was at the bottom end of the spectrum in seriousness, but Judge Sinclair said she didn't accept it wasn't a serious offence.
In court last year, the man was told it was possible he would receive a discharge without conviction if he continued with anger management counselling and did not commit any further offences.
The court heard he had successfully completed the course.
