Count them - 33 words (one of them not appropriate to this family web site) that have brought an otherwise innocuous political memoir/commentary to the national attention.

It is relevant, of course, that the words concern the alleged sexual activities of two members of the Federal Parliament, in itself enough to secure the limelight. The words suggest youthful promiscuities, flagrantly (and patently) untrue, alleged to have occurred in the politicians’ university days some twenty years ago.

In the offending passage of "Goodbye Jerusalem" by Bob Ellis, the author quotes NSW politician Rodney Cavalier as saying: "Abbott and Costello...they’re both in the Right wing of the Labour Party till the one woman f...ed both of them and married one of them and inducted them into the Young Liberals".

Court actions of this kind are initiated by a Statement of Claim, in which one person (the plaintiff) sets out the facts they will rely upon to support their claim against the defendant. One might assume, from an analysis of the passage, that the real victims are the wives of the politicians.

But in their Statement of Claim the (male) plaintiffs Abbott and Costello claim they have also been defamed as a result of the "natural and ordinary" defintions of the words used by Ellis, because those words suggest they could be seduced into a corruption of their principles - itself a serious slur on their characters.

Random House, the publishers of the book, do not deny the falsehood of the statement attributed to Mr Cavalier, who has denied that he ever said the offending words.

Unfortunately, when the manuscript was checked by their lawyers, prior to its publication, they apparently failed to identify the offending passage as defamatory.

The law of defamation is far from a contemporary concept. In Jewish law, developed in biblical times, untruths and "evil speech" were prohibited (see Leviticus 19:16). A 13^th Century English law, the Statute of Scandalarum Magnataria, provided sanctions for "defamatory rumours affecting reputation of magnates…".

In an oft repeated ditty, we teach our children that "…words can never hurt me…". Not so, says the law of adults, because defamation is precisely concerned with the harm that words can do.

Basically, defamation is a civil (not criminal) action that seeks to protect the reputation of an individual. There are complicated, often contradictory sets of rules where the law attempts to balance the needs of privacy and free speech. It is important that the law of defamation does not try to prohibit all hurtful words, but defines the type of words that are not only hurtful but actionable in court.

Clearly there is a vast difference between hurtful words uttered in public by a loved one (perhaps in anger) and those written by a journalist on the alter of public comment.

A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the estimation of a person in the eyes of those around them, after which they might reasonably think less of the person. The question of what standard to apply in a case of a defamation cannot be answered easily - the usual approach is the "fair average intelligence" test, that is, the defamatory statement was bad enough to make a substantial and respectable group of the community think less of the person.

Of course not all lies are intended to hurt someone - defamation is concerned with those statements that harm character or reputation. Remember, it is not the meaning of the allegation that is crucial, but the meaning attached to it by a reasonable reader or listener.

The defamation must be communicated to someone other than the person defamed. If you think about it, this makes sense - the defamation is concerned with the reputation held by others. But it does not have to be a public audience, in fact it is enough that a single individual receives the defamatory statement, so long as it is not the person defamed.

At common law, truth is a complete defence to a civil action for defamation - actionable defamation consists of a false statement that harms a person's reputation.

Aren’t politicians fair game? In fact it is one of Costello’s complaints that his wife has been used "to get at him", through another member of his family. But what of political comment in general?

In 1994 the High Court decided the case of Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times, and created a new defence to defamation on the grounds of political discussion. This allows fair comment about Members of Parliament concerning their performance of parliamentary duties, as well as comment on their suitability as candidates for Parliament.

Yes, words can do harm, but in pursuit of a remedy do we tend to inflict a greater harm on the right to free speech? We have ensured that members of Parliament can say what they like without fear of legal retribution (as long as they're in the Parliament); harmful words may be said if true and for the public benefit (depending on the circumstances and where you live); witnesses in court can give evidence that is clearly defamatory.

But other, wider issues of so-called "free speech" are more problematic, especially when the modern mass media is able to spread words and images to millions of people at once. And there is no doubt that the freedom to speak one's mind is essential to a democratic society - but as in many legal issues, the devil is in the detail. What is free speech and what is defamation, and how far does one have to go before words can be characterised as an attack on character?

The remedy is damages. "Damages" is the legal word for monetary compensation. It is not usually meant to be a punishment, but rather a means of placing the plaintiff in the position they occupied if the defamation not occurred.

Of course you cannot really give a person back their reputation, and the Abbotts and Costellos do not have to prove an actual financial loss as a result of the offending words.