Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 20. eventuated) of judging the issue according to what the court may think the allegedly defamatory words or images say or depict rather than what a jury could reasonably think they convey. 53 Further, although it might be correct to say that the capacity of the search results to convey the alleged defamatory imputations is to be judged by reference to the "ordinary reasonable user of a search engine such as the Google search engine"68, by analogy, say, to the way it is said that the capacity of a newspaper article to defame is to be judged by reference to the standards of an ordinary reasonable reader69, to do so would be correct only so long as the expression were understood to mean an ordinary reasonable person who has made the Google search in issue. 54 No doubt, as the Court of Appeal said, it can be assumed that the ordinary reasonable person who has used the Google search engine to make a search contemplates that the results of his or her search bear some connection to the search terms. But in the absence of tested, accepted evidence to the contrary, it must also be allowed that the ability to navigate the Google search engine, and the extent of comprehension of how and what it produces, whence it derives, and how and to what degree Google contributes to its content, may vary significantly among the range of persons taken to be representative of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable person. 55 Additionally, the question of law of whether the standard of knowledge and comprehension of the processes involved should be taken as some hypothetical midpoint in the range of understanding is yet to be authoritatively determined. It may well be that the answer will turn on evidence as to the standards of knowledge and comprehension among users of the Google search engine (be they first-time or experienced participants, and recognising that the two classes may require separate consideration for the purposes of the law of defamation70), and on inferences to be drawn from that kind of evidence as to the 68 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 597 [390]. 69 Favell (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 at 1718-1719 [5] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Heydon JJ, cf at 1722-1723 [23]-[26] per Kirby J; 221 ALR 186 at 188, cf at 193-195. 70 See Capital and Counties Bank v Henty (1882) 7 App Cas 741 at 744-745 per Lord Selborne LC, 771 per Lord Blackburn and Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 165-167 per Hunt CJ at CL (Mason P (Footnote continues on next page)