EFA has a press release condemning 2Clix's injurious falsehood suit against Whirlpool.
In this case, the maker of a software product is suing the individual owner of a discussion forum for refusing to remove allegedly malicious and false posts. Whirlpool is an excellent resource for tech news and information about hardware and software. There is no doubt that it is an influential resource in Australia. However, pinning liability on Whirlpool for injurious falsehood is a really dangerous move. While Whirlpool do remove obviously inappropriate posts, they are not in a position to be able to verify either the truth of a particular statement or the (subjective) malicious intent of the original poster. To require them to do so would seriously limit the ability of forum operators to run any type of critical discussion site.
Australia has no substantive bill of rights, and no general right of free speech. It's imperative for the courts to make decisions which protect these basic freedoms. Courts need to be able to read down common law and legislative principles in light of individual rights. Normally, this is fairly easily done, but Australia certainly has more restrictive rules about publication than other countries, most notably the US.
I think that our courts can handle this. As long as they are given an opportunity to look at the facts and the implications their decisions would have on the wider community. I'm confident that we'll see a reasonable proposition emerge that the malicious limb of injurious falsehood cannot be inferred from mere refusal to remove content which is ambiguously false.