Suing the publisher
Jeremy McIntosh could not be able to successfully sue the online journal. In the normal circumstances, Jeremy would sue the online journal of deliberate defamation of personality and damage to personal morals. The disclosure which the online publisher outlines in the journal would be very critical to be considered the violation of personal rights to free will and conscience under the normal Australian laws. They would have been deemed malicious disclosure and deterrent to the person right of free will. However, Jeremy could not sue the publisher because the facts preceding the occurrences points out to the fact that Jeremy had the deliberate intention of committing harm and damage to property which clearly do not belong to him. He disclosed his intentions to the shop employee before undertaking his actions.
More over, the publisher is clear enough to disclose the source of the information citing the Local Australian police to have made the original statements. The police are a legally recognized body in the land and thus there are no reasonable grounds to dispute the information from the police. Similarly, the publisher is keen to recognize the authority of Jeremy’s mother. The information from the mother of the to be plaintiff, that is if Jeremy decides to sue the publisher, would be deemed more authoritative following that the legally recognized mother also affirmed the earlier attempts to suicide.
Defending the publisher
Taking into consideration that Jeremy finally sues the online publisher, there are reasonable grounds to believe that there was no defamation which he would incur as a result of the publication. The online publisher is in the first place protected by the Australian freedom of the media and press laws. In the country, defamatory allegations can be made by the plaintiff if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the statements meant to be defamatory are in a position to belittle the person concerned and cause quantifiable damage.
Like in the case of Joseph Gutnick against Dow Jones, notably, in the case which Gutnick filled against Jones of maliciously disclosing information which is rather meant to be private and confidential to the owner as far as the customers are concerned. In the case, Gutnick filed a case claiming that the online publication had been able to disclose the private information about his business undertakings thus causing him a lot of harm in terms of the profit margins. Notably, the ruling which was made in the case was that the harm was actually felt by the plaintiff and owing to the same geographical region of the defendant and the plaintiff, both being in Australia, and then the defendant had actually caused damage to the plaintiff (Defamation Laws & the Internet, 2006).