I'm amazed at some of the garbage here.The company believes a...

I'm amazed at some of the garbage here.

The company believes a former employee willfully and maliciously posted false information regarding its senior staff.

I strongly support the company taking a strong response and defending its name and that of its key decision makers.

This has nothing to do with free speech and any who claims so has no understanding of defamation or free speech. The High Court has made clear that we DO have an implied right to free speech in the constitution in the case of Australian Capital Television v ACTV in 1992.

Defamation is very different to free speech and this is what PLV will attempt to show occurred. Defamation laws are a very important part of our legal system. Without it, anyone and everyone would be free to claim whatever they like about someone, possibly maliciously and possibly knowingly their claims are false. I'd certainly have a field day with Hoots :) which would be an entirely unfair to him and his 'reputation'.

Ask yourself how you would feel if someone maliciously posted false information about you in the public sphere with the intention of causing your reputation harm. I'd be livid.

HC is not gunning for anyone who expresses an opinion ie throws garbage, at the company. If they were then it would have acted long ago. Clearly the company isn't looking to stifle opinion based on their non intervention during the past few years of colourful HC banter.

Lets keep some perspective to what happened Friday.