So people finally get a voice through the internet and big business and there henchmen will pound them into silence with there thick wallets. Don't worry the big boys will get there way and you will in the end as the people are to apathetic to fight for there rites.

The title of the article makes no sense. The laws of deformation don't say "its perfectly legal to defame someone on the internet". If it was illegal to say whatever was said in print, then it is illegal on the internet. End of story. We don't need special laws for the internet, and so the the laws don't need updating.

The change the internet has wrought is now you don't have to be a journalist to get published. This means there is a lot more defaming going on, but on the flip side people take everything they read with bags of salt. The solution for the most part seems to be: don't give your money to lawyers, grow a tougher hide.

Since when has it been possible to defame a *thing*?
I thought our laws of defamation aimed to protect the individual - no, thank you parliamentary privilege! - not businesses.
Defamation is not a smear. And defamation is certainly not defamation if it's the truth.
Even though the global nature of the internet can certainly complicate jurisdiction, others commenting today have correctly observed that Australian laws don't need to change, and indeed don't change, because something is broadcast online.
Most successful businesses use public relations people - not lawyers - to protect their reputation and strengthen their relationships with the media and wider community.
Whatever might be thought about PR, it's far more cost-effective measure in the short- and long-term, than a court case which could do even more harm to a reputation.

Looks like the internet has opened up a whole new market for lawyers.
It is only defamation if the comments are untrue or false.

The best respons for a business/person who believes their reptuation has been adversely affected by an online comment is the option of responding. For example the designer who was 'defamed' after insisting a bill be paid, could have simply tweeted back their side of the story. Big cases like the McLibel case in the UK serves as a reminder of the effects of bad publicity in what turned out to be a Goliath vs David 10 year court case. Similarly Oprah Winfrey's comments about eating meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

If someone makes a comment about a bad experience eating out at a restaurant, how is that different to getting a bad review from a food critic in a magazine.

This is a really grey area but I can see a situation where defamation laws might be used to attack freedom of speech no matter how frivolous the complaint. Superinjuctions are in the same basket and it is those without the money to fight ligitgation that will be most at risk.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#defpubl

As has been pointed out, defamation is a clearly defined offence. It is distinguished from opinion (i.e. defamatory comments are not defamatory if they are clearly presented as opinion rather than fact) and it must be untrue. Defamation may include statements against individuals or organisations (including businesses).

As our ability to have our voices heard increases, we need to be more aware of our rights and responsibilities here. Perhaps this is an area where citizenship education in the school curriculum needs a catch-up. Schoolkids have a greater tendency to act rashly and, quite often, a better grasp of online technologies than their older fellow-citizens. Thus they have an increased likelihood of committing acts of defamation, possibly without even knowing that such a thing exists. At any rate, while we're keen for our kids to be experts in all things IT, we also need them to be experts in social responsibility when it comes to using that IT. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.

If it's as simple as stating 'I believe that ...' or 'in my opinion ...' before launching your attack, then these laws aren't going to 'pound them into silence' as Troposa suggests. They merely give businesses and individuals - big and small, rich and poor - an opportunity to protect themselves against unjust and untrue accusations.