Newsreader blames ‘bad law’ after Federal Court blow

Cassuto has alleged that a former newsreader with SBS World News, Mary Kostakidis, breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) by publishing two posts on X in January 2024 about a speech by the late Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah.

While Kostakidis was unsuccessful in having the whole of the statement of claim struck out, Justice McDonald agreed with submissions to have several paragraphs struck out. Cassuto was granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim by the end of this month.

“The reality is because of a bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings,” Kostakidis posted on X in the hours after Justice McDonald’s orders were made.

“And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”

In submissions to the court, Kostakidis submitted there was “no legal basis” to conclude a newsreader, reporting on social media on statements that are adverse to citizens of a particular country, could be motivated by the race or ethnic or national origin of those citizens.

Kostakidis said the argument was flawed because it “ignores the inherent occupational requirements of news reporting” and “many of the most important subjects of news reporting involve groups in some kind of conflict such that spokespeople on both sides of the conflict will say things that are insulting or offensive to persons on the other side”.

VIEW ALL

In response, Cassuto said even a newsreader might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin.

Justice McDonald said that whether Kostakidis was acting as a news reporter when she made the posts may be an issue in the proceedings, but Cassuto’s statement of claim does not assert or admit she was.

“That Kostakidis is or was a news reporter may well bear (along with other facts) on assessment of the ‘reasons’ why she made the posts. These are factual issues that are appropriately considered at trial,” he said.

Kostakidis also argued the statement of claim did not explain why a person who felt a personal connection to Israel might be offended or insulted by the posts she made in January 2024.

Justice McDonald said the amended statement of claim did include several alleged instances where there was a reasonable likelihood identified groups could be offended and insulted, even in circumstances where Cassuto was “not required to spell out in full” his argument.

He also did not accept Kostakidis’ submission that it was not reasonably arguable that speed directed to criticising the actions of Israel could never contravene the RDA. Such speech may be unlawful “if it is done because of the Jewish racial or ethnic origin or Israeli nationality of the identified group”, Justice McDonald clarified.

Several parts of the amended statement of claim that were struck out included sections that could cause some confusion, including the differences in expressions used to describe two distinct groups.

In her post, Kostakidis said she “welcomed” the opportunity for Cassuto’s legal team “to run their arguments up against a brick wall”.

“The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail,” Kostakidis said.

The case: Cassuto v Kostakidis [2025] FCA 1226.