mostie
I wouldn't get too excited about the prospect of an Australian state supreme court following a decision of a US state supreme court. Persuasive, possibly, but definitely not binding.
But even if the Delaware decision were to be followed, it apparently offers no protection against an action for defamation. From the SMH report, it merely changes the order in which matters must be proved.
In Oz, if you communicate or publish material to another party that lowers a person’s personal, professional trade or business or reputation in the estimation of the average person in the street, then you run the risk of being sued for defamation in all Australian jurisdictions.
Where the person isn’t named, the test which decides whether the words used refer to him/her, is whether the words used would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the subject to believe he/she was the person referred to.
The author of material who communicates it electronically, such as via an electronic bulletin board like PPRuNe, is deemed to have communicated or published it, and will be liable if the material is defamatory.
Subject to the defence of innocent distribution, any other person, such as PPRuNe, who intentionally or negligently takes part in, or authorises the publication of material, is said to have published it and is liable to be sued for defamation as well.
The ACT is the most generous jurisdiction in Australia in awarding damages for defamation. Don't forget the legal costs involved; usually paid by the loser, that is two sets of costs.
And PPRuNe is capable of being accessed in the ACT.