250 Dr Collins submitted that the DT quotes "were pregnant with insinuation"' because Mr Greenwich had "habits" that needed to be the subject of attention; and that one of them was that Mr Greenwich "goes into schools talking to kids about being gay", which was then linked to Mr Latham's assertion that he had deleted the primary tweet because he "didn't want to be accused of anything similar".
251 It was submitted that Mr Latham's chose imprecise, ambiguous, and loose words to "leave the powerful impression that there is something very discreditable about Mr Greenwich's habit of going into schools to talk about kids being gay. His words invite the reader to adopt a suspicious approach".
252 In context, it was submitted "the ordinary, reasonable reader will have understood Mr Latham to be evoking the vile stereotype that gay men like Mr Greenwich are a danger to children; and that Mr Greenwich is a particular danger to children because he goes into schools to talk to kids about disgusting sexual acts; to lure them into becoming homosexual".
253 I do not accept those submissions.
254 In my view, it was correctly submitted on behalf of Mr Latham that an ordinary reasonable person would understand him to mean that he, Mr Latham, did not think it was right for people to go to schools to talk to students about sexual matters, and, consistently, given the sexually explicit nature of the primary tweet, he thought he should take it down in case young people might read it.
255 There is nothing which suggests that Mr Greenwich was grooming students, which is to say, as Mr Smark correctly put it, "softening them up with a view to their engaging in sexual activity (homosexual or otherwise)".
256 As Mr Smark put it, that is a strained meaning which the ordinary reasonable person would not draw.
DAMAGES
Damages for non-economic loss – applicable principles
257 There was no dispute about the applicable principles in relation to an award of damages for non-economic loss.
258 As Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ said in Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 60–61:
