Latham appeal hinges on political and personal divide
A vulgar and explicit tweet by maverick MP Mark Latham was part of an expected election-season political “slash and attack” and sought to have his loss for defamation reversed, his lawyer has argued.
While people may disagree about how Mr Latham chose to attack his foe, the nature of his outburst was a proportionate political and personal response to an earlier attack by independent NSW MP Alex Greenwich, appeal judges were told on Tuesday.
Mr Latham is appealing the decision to pay Mr Greenwich $140,000 over an obscene tweet sent days after the 2023 NSW state election.
The tweet described the gay politician as engaging in explicit sex acts and was in response to Mr Greenwich describing Mr Latham as a “disgusting human being”.
The Federal Court ruled that the post defamed the LGBTQI advocate by suggesting she engaged in disgusting sexual activities.
But the former federal Labor leader says gay men having sex is not defamatory.
Lawyer Gabriella Rubagotti told the Federal Court’s three-day appeal hearing that calling Mr Latham disgusting was not just a political attack and went to “the very essence of who he is as a person”.
“How can you be so hypocritical to launch this attack on me when there are questions about your own character?” That, he said, was what was going through Mr. Latham’s mind at the time.
“One may or may not agree that this warrants that question, but that is the nature of the answer,” Ms. Rubagotti said.
“This is not a court of taste, but a court of law, and the relevant law is contempt.”
The court initially found that Mr Latham’s tweet was “manifestly disproportionate or disproportionate” to Mr Greenwich’s rebuke.
But Ms. Rubagotti argued that the language Mr. Greenwich used, including describing his parliamentary colleague as “hateful”, made Mr. Latham’s tweet a reasonable response in the political environment.
“Cutting and pushing are integral to the election debate,” he said.
“Political debate in Australia is not all about the whispered politeness of intellectual discourse.”
Mr Greenwich rejected Mr Latham’s claim that he was merely responding to an attack.
The Sydney MP said in documents submitted to the court that the post was not authorized because it “followed” supposedly private sexual activities.
He filed a cross-appeal for increased compensation.
The trial continues.
