I'm not on Facebook; I don't read news papers, I don't have a radio or a TV set, and quite frankly, I'm too busy living my own life to be involved with the blatant "stupid", which is social media.

Try that recipe for peace, it works!

Dan.

What a laugh - "totally damaged" his credibility". How could a Facebook user have 'credibility'. Same goes for tweeters, twits, twats or whatever they are called. That politicians, including the POTUS indulge in that rubbish shows just how low society has sunk.

It's pathetic, though, if ordinary people cannot say whatever they like, as long as what they say is true. As this author says, unsophisticated, unknowing people can be bluffed into paying up because they don't know that you cannot liable people if you are telling the truth.

"Social media has enabled a small group of women to play havoc with many people's lives". No. The 'many people' have allowed the small group to do it to them. Playing the victim attracts bullies.

We really, really do not want Big Brother intruding into anything else. If you feel bullied, remove yourself from the bully's sphere. Or, ignore them. Nobody actually needs to use social media, and if you keep using it and think you are being bullied, the problem is yours.

As you can see, not too much normal human empathy from those who've already posted. Not everybody in aged care are any different, in fact, a few can be quite combative, find fault with your reaction to pain, especially that which regularly exceeds a very high personal threshold. I could take opioids but they're extremely addictive.

As to the bullying, you were always better served by blocking until the cows come home. A reaction is playing their game and they're both manipulative and extremely mendacious!

As for the size of the damages claim? Simply breathtaking! And should have been defended! with a countersuit for wrongful mischievous vexatious time-wasting manipulation of the legal system and our already gridlocked courts!

Apologise for the two earlier commentators, these "gentlemen" have little regard for female sensitivities or plain old fashioned courtesy, civility or manners?

Or have unresolved issues? Need to man up like fair dinkum men! And save the unnecessary verbal vitriol for those who have earned from them!
Alan B.

Interesting that facebook comments can be deemed defamatory.

Hopefully it can be sorted so the lawyers' picnic is not extended.

IMO, Australia's defamation laws make it too easy to take legal action over virtually nothing

As for the size of the damages claim? Simply breathtaking! And should have been defended! with a countersuit for wrongful mischievous vexatious time-wasting manipulation of the legal system and our already gridlocked courts!

Apologise for the two earlier commentators, these "gentlemen" have little regard for female sensitivities or plain old fashioned courtesy, civility or manners?

I think this opinion piece trivializes the impact of wanton lies that induce serious psychological harm, destroy an individual's professional credibility, damage prospects of gainful employment, annihilate a previously impeccable reputation and leaves in its wake irreparable carnage.
For the most part claims of defamation won't get to first base unless specific criteria is met, the main element of which is that the written or spoken allegation is either a blatant LIE or a false imputation. Surely people have a right to defend themselves against spurious accusations and innuendo? It's one thing to be labeled "an attention seeking fool" but quite another to be publicly accused of being say, "a dangerous paedophile".
The majority of complainants will accept some form of reparation before proceeding to Court. Often it's as simple as a public apology or a small financial offering. Taking the matter further requires a substantial financial "investment" that's prohibitive to the average Joe. Lawyers and barristers don't come cheap, and unless they're confident you have plenty of the green stuff they quickly drop the baton and go home! There may well be an increased interest in claiming defamation, but I seriously doubt the suggestion there's an influx of "snowflakes" melting in the witness stand. Please tell me the writer's claim of handing over $100,000 to avoid Court is a typo? Maybe $10,000 is closer to the mark? My guess is it's an exaggeration, an error or someone has money to use as kindling. I really struggle with the idea that any person being of sound mind would "gift" a Plaintiff one hundred grand simply for calling a random FB user a "troll". Very odd indeed.