Defamation is the damaging of a reputation via the publication of false information.

In 2005, national uniform defamation legislation was introduced across Australia, providing more certainty for publishers by removing eight different types of defamation law.

In the digital age - where news stories from one state can be instantaneously published in another - the uniformity of defamation laws is perhaps more important now than ever.

One of the key reforms a decade ago was removing the ability for corporations with 10 or more staff to sue for defamation.

However, the Hodgman government has signalled the right will be returned, paving the way for big business to use financial might to silence critics.

Curtailing freedom of the press is not usually in the Liberals' DNA and the government's proposal has been framed as a response to extreme green activism that has damaged state interests.

But the law of unintended consequences is very much at play here.

Despite the increased red tape for publishers (would a book critical about banks need two editions - one for fit for Tasmania's changed defamation laws and another for the rest of Australia?), Tasmania's Chamber of Commerce and Industry backs the proposal.

It says forestry companies need an avenue of recourse when their reputations are harmed - not an unreasonable position.

The Law Society of Tasmania has a different view, saying the change will have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"Against well-resourced corporations, the cost of proving the relevant facts would be prohibitive for most individuals and community groups, particularly if expert evidence is required," president Anthony Mihal says.

He points out that corporations are not without options when it comes to protecting their reputations.

Companies can already sue for "injurious falsehood" if a false publication has caused it to suffer financial loss.

Indeed, the existence of the remedy is one of the reasons why a corporation's right to sue was removed from defamation laws.

But it wasn't the only reason.

Defamation payments are often calculated to an amount reflecting the level of humiliation and embarrassment a person has experienced by having his or her reputation tarnished.

Clearly a corporation does not have feelings so it can neither be humiliated nor embarrassed.

Another reason it was seen necessary to curtail the rights of a company to sue for defamation was corporate mischief.

The threat of legal action is a powerful tool in preventing scrutiny and one that was used before the 2005 reforms.

The proposed changes matter not just for Tasmania's media landscape but also media interests across the country.

Upset with a story in Melbourne newspaper The Age, for example, a large corporation might launch legal action against Fairfax in a Tasmanian court because the article has also been published here on the web.

Indeed, the changes could lead to jurisdiction shopping, making Tasmania a rather unfortunate destination for litigious corporations.

The government says it will consult "stakeholders" in developing the new legislation.

Let's hope Tasmania's media outlets, which also employ hundreds of local people, are given a seat at the table.