Thinking about Posettigate again, the interesting thing now that the case has been effectively dropped is what it's possible to believe about Chris Mitchell's motives in bringing it in the first place.
(1) He genuinely believed that a newspaper editor suing a journalist for defamation was a sensible and positive way to protect his professional reputation, and that the consequences for his reputation would be positive.
(2) He knew what everyone else immediately spotted - that the consequences for his professional reputation would be disastrous (though perhaps not as globally disastrous as it has proved) - but for some other reason he went ahead and did it anyway.
No-one else believed (1), and everyone says the guy is neither mad nor stupid. What might reason (2) be?
These laws apply to you. They're complicated and scary. Breaking them is easy to do by accident, and can cost you a lot of money. You probably don't know what you're doing, so best leave well alone. Leave the news reporting to us, OK?
It is obvious from the recent actions of The Australian's management (calling the police on an #iamspartacus tweeter, threatening to sue Posetti), and from the tone of of the recent media diary blog post on the subject, that this is the paper's attitude to people who don't work in a newspaper or TV newsroom contributing to the debate about the news. Commentors on articles are "trolls". Twitter, the new first draft of history that any competent journalist will be making a key part of their newsgathering strategy, is
"dross, produced by some clown with a cartoon character for a picture by-line, a fake name, no sense of perspective, and a good bit of bile in their gut."
Suing Posetti for defamation never made any sense as a strategy for defending a newspaper editor's professional reputation. But as a way of repressing open debate by striking fear and doubt into anyone who dares to challenge the exclusive right of mainstream media to report the news - well, there it might just have scored a hit.