This just happened today:
Legal counsel Martin Bennett has just won his client $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won't post any more defamatory comments.
''There has been an increasing proliferation of internet chat sites where people feel free to hide their identities and make defamatory comments ...." Mr Bennet said in a statement released after the case in the Supreme Court of Western Australia was resolved.
www.smh.com.au/technology/cyber-poisonpenner-hunted-down-and-sued-20100224-p3n7.html
Mr Bennett has launched two more cases. Both are pending before the WA Supreme Court.
I'm still amazed that people believe they can still be "anonymous" on the net...
I think the above case involved corporate defamation.. all the same it is long overdue that the idea the internerd is there to live out fantasies as a bully or general all round orsool is nearing an end.
The internerd is for wind/wave info n porn - stoopid.
Now play nice. 
It seems safer when da boys/girls biff it out on a key board than when the boys/girls have had a skin full of beers and then in person, want to let some know about it.
heres an idea,
the abuse forum!!
Only accessable if you've wavered your defamation rights or some thing, usernames aI re blocked if your not one to be a part of it so you cant be villified with out consent.
if you cant take, it dont give it etc..
.Go on tell me my ideas ruted.... I dare you, mwha hah ha ha[}:)]
Can get a bit heavy at times, there is no need to get agressive.
Cant imagine it getting that bad here, can it?? 
Who? "martian "bannet" sack licking bottom feeder lawyer what next mr bannet (ball slapper)gona take 12 yearold to court for playn a videogame.
This comment to the article pretty much sums it up for me:
"What's up with the whining about 'privacy' and 'free speech?'
To my knowledge laws on defamation have not changed signficantly in recent times, so really this is simply a way of enforcing a current statute. Anyways, taking court action is expensive with an uncertain outcome, so only the really bad cases are going to wind up in the courts anyway.
Funny how some people equate 'free speech' with 'being able to say whatever I want, whenevr I want, in whatever forum I want be it true / false / malicious / slanderous'. Note to these people - the internet is a public forum. Say whatever you want in private - but when you are in a public space the law of the land applies. Simple really."
-Nick
Laurie
Everytime somebody rolls over at the slightest hint of legal provocation, Ie: this dip jit:http://users.dhp.com/~verbal/laurence_godfrey/godfrey.html
it erodes what little right we have how days of telling it how it is. Here is some inspiration:
www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-06/mf_hiroyuki
Ja
I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe that what you say must be true.
To use an anonymous identity on an internet forum (or any media really) to spread lies and assassinate someones character is a cowardly act and there should be a way for the victim to have it stopped and possibly seek damages if there has been a loss incurred.
The right to freedom of speech that our ancestors fought for and died to protect should not include the right to be dishonest, vindictive and nasty without penalty.
If this is anything to go by, in another story published today, moderators can be responsible for content that appears on their site.
"A court in Milan on Wednesday convicted three Google Italy executives over an internet video showing a handicapped teenager being bullied - an unprecedented ruling that the US internet search giant vowed to appeal."
www.theage.com.au/technology/google-executives-convicted-over-posted-video-20100225-p414.html
