It's a question that had Federal Court lawyers reaching for the dictionary.
Did a tweet written by former federal Labor MP Mike Kelly imply Liberal Party pollsters Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor are hypocrites?
Mr Crosby and Mr Textor are suing Dr Kelly for defamation over a tweet he sent in October 2011 in which he accused the pair of introducing push-polling to Australia.
"Always grate (sic) to hear moralizing from Crosby, Textor, Steal & Gnash. The mob who introduced push polling to Aus," Dr Kelly said in his tweet.
Push polling is the practice of asking slanted questions during polling to bias voters against an opposing candidate.
Mr Crosby and Mr Textor claim Dr Kelly defamed them by accusing them of introducing this "morally disreputable practice" to Australia.
In his defence, Dr Kelly claims what he said is "substantially true, contextually true, published on an occasion of qualified privilege and an honest expression of opinion".
The former MP also filed a contextual imputation that both Mr Textor and Mr Crosby are hypocrites.
The defence of contextual truth is successful if a defendant can prove his allegedly defamatory statement included a more damaging allegation than the plaintiff has claimed.
If this more serious allegation is found to be true, the plaintiff has no case as their reputation is incapable of being further damaged.
Mr Crosby and Mr Textor sought to strike out the imputation they were hypocrites, saying it did not arise.
They argued that a hypocrite was a person who pretended that he or she was something the person was not and that a moraliser was a person who merely discussed moral questions that were neutral in themselves.
They argued that the matter complained of merely attributed to each of them the introduction of push polling into Australia and that it did not suggest that this act was inconsistent with anything on which either had been "moralising".
The court was brought through various dictionary meanings of "moralising" and "hypocrite" with the Macquarie, Oxford and Collins dictionaries all consulted.
But in a judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Steven Rares found an ordinary reader would be capable of finding Dr Kelly meant to imply Mr Crosby and Mr Textor were hypocrites, in that they "expressed moral views about matters that were different from what they actually did".
As a result, he said the imputation should not be struck out.
The case will go to trial at a later date.
