There is a struggle of power. Society has become marginalised, oppressed and limited to an inescapable realm of misery, impairment and self-humiliation. The proletariat suffers upon the advertent control of the boujoise, and although the proletariat struggles to defame the corruption of the all-powerful regulator, it is a vain attempt. Outside a war rages. The struggle against oppression and the right to express concern is diminishing. Defamation, vilification, shame and slanderous accusation stands at the forefront of modern freedoms and liberty itself. The modern state is now controlled by defamation laws, which although protects individuals with funds to defend supposed false accusation, it has silenced the truth and subverted justice to only those who can pay for its luxury.
With the overwhelming convergence of new media technologies upon society, representing unparallel difficulty suppressing defamation, the task to monitor vilifying and slanderous acquisitions seems futile if not derisory. The implications to control and eliminate such defamatory publishing is unable to be refuted, but in an age where nearly everyone has the capability to employ defamatory articles, the ability to regulate a nation seems impracticable. As seen in the high court case of Dow Jones v Gutnick, free-speech advocates, and those who publish via the internet, need to be aware that although an article may be published overseas, a person defamed can still bring action in their own Australian state. Similarly asserted by Justice Hedican in Victoria, internet publishing should be equal to other forms of media publication. Thousands of people within a particular discipline or with a formal interest, for example, may read a blog published in America about philosophy. In the blog, an article relating to a recent concept could be described as fallacious, absurd or could be ridiculed. Due to the audience being likeminded, it could cause defamation on a far greater scale compared to a newspaper targeting a more diverse audience. Which, although it is fine if an individual has the resources to dispute allegations, for those without copious amounts of money at hand, and the inability to find the individual who has defamed them, it is a growing concern for whistle blowers and those who wish to uphold freedom of information and expression to have a voice which won’t be silenced.