Whether you agree with Piers Morgans' vehement criticism of Meghan Markle or not, the question that Ofcom was tasked with answering was whether he should have the freedom to express his opinion - and whether that opinion was significantly challenged.
The answer - a resounding yes - was little surprise to anyone.
But was it the right one?
As much as Piers might want to focus on himself being "vindicated" by the ruling, it's more about whether ITV was right to air his opinions and whether there was enough resistance when he did so.
Ofcom ruled that Piers was "entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's allegations", which it said was "consistent with freedom of expression". Furthermore, it reported that his comments were "rigorously challenged" by co-stars Chris Ship and Susanna Reid.
Do you agree with Ofcom's decision, or did Piers go too far? Have your say in the comments below
In an incredibly strongly worded conclusion, Ofcom ruled that the restriction of such views would be an "unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression both of the broadcaster and the audience".
However, ITV was also reminded by the regulator to "take care" when broadcasting content on sensitive issues and mental health.
Despite Ofcom's reasoning, the ruling has come as a bitter pill to the record-breaking 58,000 people who complained - including the Duchess of Sussex herself - about his comments to the watchdog.
After all, this certainly isn't the first time that Piers has been reported to Ofcom with the complaints not upheld. Just months before Piers walked out of GMB, 1,500 viewers complained about him mimicking the Chinese language and using the phrase "ching chang".
Again, while it was agreed his behaviour "had the potential to be particularly offensive", it was concluded that there was "sufficient challenge and context". ITV's apology for any offence caused was taken into account on that occasion.
Among those criticising Ofcom's decision today was Meghan and Harry's unofficial biographer Omid Scobie, who suggested that "discrediting a person's mental health issues on TV reinforce[s] a dangerous stigma and put[s] others at risk".
It is a valid point, considering Piers' strong presence and the obvious influence he has in the public eye. His suggestion that Meghan was "lying" about her suicidal thoughts could perpetuate the idea that others opening up about their own mental health issues could also be doing so purely for attention.
Again, it comes down to the argument about whether someone's views are harmful enough that their freedom of speech should be silenced.
Unsurprisingly, Piers did not take kindly to Omid's remarks and furiously responded to the royal journalist, barking: "Pipe down, Lickspittle."
Unfortunately for Piers - despite asking for his old job back - it doesn't look like ITV execs will be bowing down and begging him to return to GMB anytime soon, despite flagging viewing figures.
A spokesperson has confirmed that it has no current plans to invite him back onto the ITV daytime show, but that it welcomes the ruling that GMB didn't breach broadcast standards.
Freedom of speech is something that we all take for granted and shouldn't be stifled unless the result is significant damage. While many of us find Piers grating, egotistical and rude, he also sparks intriguing debates and polarising opinions.
Once you start trying to silence the opinions of those you don't like, you start walking down a very dangerous path.
