The Law of Defamation

When we are conducting research, we want to be thinking about how we are using the sources. There is no benefit in just reiterating what other authors have stated previously, you need to ‘add value’ by providing critical analysis and demonstrating how their ideas and theories fit into your own arguments.Read the following extracts and reflect upon the differences in how the authors present the arguments and work of another. What differences can you observe, and which is the better expression of critical work?1. In a recent article, Newbery-Jones contended that “the current law of defamation is not fit for purpose and needs significant reform.” Warburton also believes that the law is unfit, stating that “defamation law is dumb.” Zavoli and a number of other scholars aggressively disagree.2. Both Warburton and Newbery-Jones have questioned the adequacy of the law of defamation in England and Wales. However, their respective positions have been criticised by a number of diverse scholars, particularly those who question the validity of Newbery-Jones’ sample participants. Furthermore, Warburton’s piece was written in 1983 and is not wholly reflective of the current state of the law. Yet, there is a commonality within the work of all these scholars. All fail to adequately address the shifting realities of the sphere in which defamation law functions in a much more technologically advanced society.