Court case against journalist Kostakidis over Israel posts ends by mutual consent

A federal court case that had consumed two years of a journalist's life ended on Friday without a verdict, without costs assigned to either side, and without the public courtroom battle that both parties had seemed prepared to wage. Mary Kostakidis, a former newsreader at Australia's public broadcaster SBS, had been sued by the Zionist Federation of Australia over two social media posts she shared in January 2024. The federation alleged she had breached the Racial Discrimination Act by posting a video of a speech by Hassan Nasrallah, the late Hezbollah secretary general, alongside commentary that read: "The Israeli govt getting some of its own medicine. Israel has started something it can't finish with this genocide."

The case had traveled from the Australian Human Rights Commission to federal court, where Kostakidis mounted a procedural challenge. She argued that the federation's claim was fundamentally flawed—it had failed to specify which race, ethnicity, or nationality her posts had actually offended. The federation's chief executive, Alon Cassuto, maintained that the posts had caused "hurt, distress and pain" to Jewish and Israeli Australians who interpreted them as an endorsement of Hezbollah's position. But rather than press forward to a judgment, both sides agreed to end the proceedings on Friday with what lawyers call a discontinuation by consent.

What shifted the trajectory was an apology Kostakidis had issued in 2025, roughly a year into the litigation. She had expressed regret for the "hurt, distress and pain" her words had caused to members of the Jewish Australian community. Cassuto, in his statement on Friday, indicated that this acknowledgment had substantially satisfied his objectives in bringing the case. He said he had no appetite to spend another year in court, particularly given that Kostakidis had continued to publish commentary he found objectionable since the apology. "A further apology compelled by a court would ring hollow," he wrote.

Kostakidis framed the dismissal as vindication. In her own statement, she described the past two years as consumed entirely by preparing a defense against what she characterized as an attempt to silence her. She called the outcome a win for press freedom and for the democratic right to political expression. She thanked Australians who had supported her case and reiterated her view that journalism's purpose is to pursue truth and hold power accountable, even when doing so provokes strong reactions. She also restated her position on the underlying conflict, describing the situation as a people livestreaming their own genocide while the international community offered sympathy to victims and protection to perpetrators.

Cassuto's closing statement carried a different tone. He said the issues that had motivated him to bring the case—questions about how antisemitism had become normalized in Australian public discourse—were now being examined through a separate channel: a royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion. That commission's report is due in December. He suggested that Kostakidis could account for her own conduct, and the Australian public could form its own judgment. He made clear he would not be the vehicle for amplifying what he called her "repugnant commentary" any further.

The case had never reached trial. It had been resolved through the mutual decision of two parties who had reached an impasse—one believing an apology had been offered and accepted, the other believing that apology had been undermined by subsequent statements. The court's role was simply to record the discontinuation. No determination was made about whether the posts actually violated the Racial Discrimination Act. No precedent was set. What remained was the apology itself, the two years of legal preparation, and the broader questions about speech, offense, and accountability that the case had raised but not answered.