{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025490196078431372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00196078431372549, 'mean_word_length': 5.150602409638554, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Protecting Speech in Defamation Law: Beyond Reynolds-Style Defences

Public speech is changing. Institutional media remains significant, but in a very different context than even 10 years ago, let alone what is often called the era of broadcast news. With internet-based communications, many more people can reach a public directly with less editorial influence on their speech. The ways in which this occurs remain embedded within divisions of language, age, gender and economics, and legacy media remain significant in many ways: audience size and connections with political processes are two notable ones. Even so, there are clear opportunities for ‘more speech’ and, it seems plausible to think, opportunities for speech of more varied styles from a wider variety of speakers to circulate in more public forms than was commonplace in twentieth-century mass media. (Earlier print media appears to have had far more combative strands than twentieth century mass media, at least in the Anglo-American media traditions.)