Comment by advisedwang

This article, and I suspect much of "journal" it is published in, is an attempt to recast right-wing complaints about cancel culture into respectable legal language. Make it appear (in true right wing fashion) as if they are defending some time honored truth that has recently been corrupted.

I don't have the knowledge or scholarship to go point by point verifying or refuting the actual article, and it does bring up up a lot of interesting points.

But I beg you not to be suckered by academic phrasing, calls to the past or the mere length of the article. How we treat defamation should be based on what has the best outcomes for society today, and you should be able to come to you own conclusions about what a world where "true defamation" is prohibited would look like.