I was teaching a class on freedom of speech when Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation verdict was handed down | Daniel Joyce

We began the discussion with truth, a traditional rationale for protecting free speech, which in the end underscored Justice Besanko's judgment

• Ben Roberts-Smith loses defamation case
• Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast

I was in the classroom teaching media law when Justice Besanko delivered judgment in the defamation case brought by Ben Roberts-Smith. Our class was entitled Freedom of Speech in Australia. But could a philosophical examination of freedom of speech and its place in the Australian media law landscape connect with what promised to be the most consequential media law case of recent times?

We began the discussion with truth - a traditional rationale for protecting free speech. Truth as an ideal so often seems out of step with our disrupted and fragmented experience of the public sphere. Truth is often illusory or contingent. Yet as the summary of the judgment reveals, the Roberts-Smith case underscores the enduring significance of truth for public interest journalism and also the centrality of truth as a defamation defence, despite the fact that it is costly, complex and difficult to prove.

Sign up for Guardian Australia's free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup