The recent defamation cases brought by politicians highlight a major problem with the Australian justice system, in particular because at least one of the defendants is an individual citizen.

We are all theoretically equal before the law, but in truth there is great disparity between people's access to justice.

Going to court is an expensive experience.

Defamation barrister Matthew Lewis has been quoted by ABC News as estimating a "no-frills" defamation case costs "upwards of $100,000" in NSW, while more complicated cases can cost in excess of $300,000.

Defending yourself is a luxury reserved for the wealthy, it seems.

Defamation laws are complex.

As lawyer Vicki Mullen has pointed out, while freedom of speech "should be protected as a matter of public interest, personal reputations should be protected as a matter of private interest".

However, it becomes particularly complicated when the reputation of a politician is "crucial to the public interest" but is also the source of their career - without their reputation, their re-election will likely be unsuccessful, and this impacts them personally.

Defamation laws attempt to strike a balance between these public and private interests.

Politicians are expected to have thick skins - it's practically written into their job descriptions.

They are often targeted for their comments and opinions as well as their policies, and there is a public expectation they will accept the good with the bad.

However, with the advent of social media, individual citizens have more access to the public forum than ever before, and to borrow from that great philosopher, Marvel's Stan Lee: "With great power comes great responsibility."

We need to think about what we say before we say it, as just one tweet can land us in court and saddle us with a legal bill many of us would spend a lifetime trying to pay off.

It feels unfair, doesn't it?

That our politicians can appear to do and say things that appear to be morally reprehensible - or at least questionable - and if an individual calls them out for it publicly, they are the ones who suffer for it?

Furthermore, politicians enjoy absolute privilege for speaking in Parliament, which protects them from defamation actions being brought against them for speeches, debates or discussion held in the people's house.

This can also feel like the scales are tipped unfairly in their favour.

Abuse is never OK and absolutely, a line needs to be drawn in the sand - but drawing it arbitrarily against individuals who are so out of balance with the plaintiff's power and position feels shocking.

Bringing an action in defamation requires specific criteria for it to succeed in court and doing so regardless of whether your case meets the criteria, knowing that the other party can't afford to fight such a case, sends a message to the rest of the country that free speech is on notice: every tweet, every comment, every post, could attract litigious action and destroy your life, regardless of whether it meets the threshold for a court to rule it defamatory.

So, while we need to be careful in what we say and how we say it, and we need to ensure that our public communication doesn't defame others, our public figures must still be held to a higher standard.

Political representatives hold great power over us, but their responsibility to us is equally as great.

Perhaps we need more focus on the latter and less on the former.

This is Australia's Justice System - protecting the wealthy since 1901.