A vulgar and explicit tweet from maverick MP Mark Latham was part of the political "cut and thrust" expected in an election period, his lawyer argued in a bid to overturn his defamation loss.
While people may not agree with how Mr Latham chose to attack his nemesis, 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 challenging an order to pay Mr Greenwich $140,000 over a sexually explicit tweet sent days after the NSW state election in 2023.
The tweet described the gay politician engaging in explicit sex acts and came as a response to Mr Greenwich describing Mr Latham as a "disgusting human being".
The Federal Court found the post defamed the LGBTQI advocate by suggesting he engaged in disgusting sexual activities.
But the former federal Labor leader maintains saying gay men had sex was not defamatory.
Calling Mr Latham disgusting was not just a political attack and went to "the core of who he is as a person", his barrister Gabriella Rubagotti told the three-day Federal Court appeal hearing.
"How could you be such a hypocrite in launching this attack on me when there are questions about your own character?" was what was running through Mr Latham's mind at the time, she said.
"One may or may not agree with whether it warrants that question, but that's the nature of the response," Ms Rubagotti said.
"This is not a court of good taste, it's a court of law - and the relevant law is defamation."
The court originally found Mr Latham's tweet was "obviously not proportionate or commensurate" with the rebuke from Mr Greenwich.
But Ms Rubagotti argued the language used by Mr Greenwich, including calling his parliamentary colleague "hateful", made Mr Latham's tweet a reasonable response in the political climate.
"Cut and thrust is part and parcel of electoral debate," she said.
"Political debate in Australia is not simply the whispered civilities of intellectual discourse."
Mr Greenwich has rejected the claim Mr Latham was merely responding to an attack.
The post was not warranted because it "went after" sexual activities that were presumed private, the Sydney MP said in documents filed with the court.
He has filed a cross-appeal to increase the damages.
The hearing continues.
