1) The Iranian government has confirmed the deaths of twenty people during the protests while "unconfirmed" reports by dissidents say that there have been nearly 250 deaths in the ten days preceding June 25. Iranian authorities have closed universities in Tehran, blocked web sites, blocked cell phone transmissions and text messaging and banned rallies. Iranians who attempted to access most informational databases and search engines are met with a page reading the following "the requested is forbidden". Clearly the state censorship in Iran is far from presenting itself as a bulwark between society (as the Iranian government misleadingly believes), and forces of subversion or moral corruption. Rather the Iranian state censorship is an instrument for it to impose its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct for all. This is evident as most forms of media are vetted for acceptability by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

2) Not long ago Carroll's complaint would have not been taken solemnly and then it would have been tossed under the carpet with a fastidious little note (such as the response he got from the Ms Irlweg) either through e-mail or letter but nevertheless which sent him to "hell" by showing him "heaven". However by having a platform such as the blogging site, he was then able to not only contest but also publicize the incident and the subsequent response to it that in a short space of time reached thousands. As one of the comments stated, "thanks to internet the little guy can have a big voice...".
Although I am quite ambivalent in the Amanda Bonnen's case in terms of who is defamed in this situation, her (by being sued) or Horizon Group Management, regardless both have also had platform to be heard, to criticize, to be criticized and to protest where one feels is being treated inequitably.
One of the advantages of these sites is that people can publish their opinions, responses, critics so on and so on withou fear of public scrutiny. Therefore if one feels that the use of these new technologies has defamed them, they can rightfully respond in the public by publishing their take or complaint on the matter, or maybe they sue, who knows the outcome? Or rather if after introspection they think the comment or complaint has grounds to stand, they can just redress and employ preventive measures.