fbpx
Wikipedia

Defamation

July 25, 2023

Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation), Slander (disambiguation) and Defamation (film).
For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Libel.

Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (spoken off the record). It is treated as a civil wrong (tort, delict), as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included on top of allegations of facts, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence.[1][2][3][4][additional citation(s) needed]

Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult – as applicable to every citizen –‍, to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures):[5][additional citation(s) needed]

History

Defamation law has a long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies, defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law.

Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although punitive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which is derived the modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false.

The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: "qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo."[6] In this case, the offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting. According to Ulpian, not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo, he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ("adversus bonos mores huius civitatis") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ("quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret") the person exposed thereto.[7] Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum.[8] In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made, but, even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true.[9] The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation.

In Anglo-Saxon England, whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue.[10] Historically, while defamation of a commoner in England was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a member of the English aristocracy was called scandalum magnatum, literally "the scandal of magnates".[11]

Defamation has historically featured prominently in religious ethics and jurisprudence particularly in Abrahamic faiths. In Judaism, lashon hara is a variety of defamation actionable under halakhic law.[12] Lashon hara differs from other conceptions of defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, rather than falsehood and harm arising. By contrast, hotzaat shem ra ("spreading a bad name"), also called hotzaat diba, consists of untrue remarks and is best translated as "slander" or "defamation". Hotzaat shem ra is worse on account of its inherent dishonesty and is consequently considered a graver sin than lashon hara.[12] In Roman Catholic theology, defamation is seen through the lens of two distinct sins, that of lying and that of impinging on a person's right to a reputation.[13] It is considered to be close to detraction, the sin of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person.[14] While, particularly in the case of halakhic courts and dispute resolution, Jewish and Christian theological approaches to defamation are influential in shaping attitudes and public policy toward defamation, their practical influence over defamation in tort and criminal law is limited in contemporary secular legal systems.

Under Islamic law, there are various defamation-related offences and sins rooted in the historical development of Islamic jurisprudence. While contemporary Islamic or Muslim-majority jurisdictions are typically primarily common or civil law jurisdictions, Islamic jurisprudence exercises a significant influence over jurisdictions in the Islamic world seeking to "harmonise" their legal systems with Islamic worldviews.[15] The Islamic concept of "tashir", i.e. the principle that conduct aimed at discrediting an individual's dignity or honour in the eyes of the community is inherently wrongful, informs jurists' approach to defamation in the Islamic world.[16] Furthermore, with regard to the tension between the protection of community members' honour (which is viewed as a public good, or "God's right") and freedom of speech (which is viewed as an individual "man's right"), Islamic jurisprudence places greater emphasis on the former than on the latter.[15]

Following the Second World War and with the rise of contemporary international human rights law, the right to a legal remedy for defamation is rooted in Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that:

  1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This implies a right to legal protection against defamation; however, this right co-exists with the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[17] Article 19 of the ICCPR expressly provides that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be limited so far as it is necessary "for respect of the rights or reputations of others".[17] Consequently, international human rights law provides that while individual's should have the right to a legal remedy for defamation, this right must be balanced with the equally protected right to freedom of opinion and expression. In general, ensuring that domestic defamation law adequately balances individuals' right to protect their reputation with freedom of expression and of the press entails:[18]

  • Providing for truth (i.e., demonstrating that the content of the defamatory statement is true) to be a valid defence,
  • Recognising reasonable publication on matters of public concern as a valid defence, and
  • Ensuring that defamation may only be addressed by the legal system as a tort.

In most of Europe, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others.[19] Additionally, restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws (including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and by the constitutions of a variety of countries are subject to some variation of the three-part test recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee which requires that limitations be: 1) "provided by law that is clear and accessible to everyone", 2) "proven to be necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputations of others", and 3) "proportionate and the least restrictive to achieve the purported aim".[20] This test is analogous to the Oakes Test applied domestically by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the "necessary in a democratic society" test applied by the European Court of Human Rights in assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR, Section 36 of the post-Apartheid Constitution of South Africa,[21] and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya.[22]

Defamation as a tort

Further information: tort

While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently, it is typically regarded as a tort[a] for which the offended party can take civil action. The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range from damages to court orders requiring the defendant to retract the offending statement or to publish a correction or an apology.

Common law

Background

Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from English defamation law. English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation[24][25][26]) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.

Overview

In contemporary common law jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[27] Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[28] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like, then it is slander. In contrast, libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than spoken words or gestures.[29][b] The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.[30] The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$222.7 million was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favour of MMAR Group Inc;[31] however, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.[32]

In common law jurisdictions, civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism. A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore's ruling People's Action Party to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as J. B. Jeyaretnam[33][34][35][36][37] Over the first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists, journalists, and critics of corporations, political leaders, and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation.[38] As a result, tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions; the California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario's Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff.[39][40]

Defences

There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions.[41] The two most fundamental defences arise from the doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable.[c] Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence.[43] Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges".[44] Similarly, the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true.[45] Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether the statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation.

Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include:[46][47]

  • Privilege: A circumstance that justifies or excuses an act that would otherwise constitute a tort on the ground that it stemmed from a recognised interest of social importance, provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted. While some privileges have long been recognised, courts may create a new privilege for particular circumstances – privilege as an affirmative defence is a potentially ever-evolving doctrine. Such newly created or circumstantially recognised privileges are referred to as residual justification privileges. There are two types of privilege in common law jurisdictions:
    • Absolute privilege has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature by a member thereof (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
    • Qualified privilege: A more limited, or 'qualified', form of privilege may be available to journalists as a defence in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Another example would be that a professor – acting in good faith and honesty – may write an unsatisfactory letter of reference with unsatisfactory information.
  • Mistake of fact: Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
  • Mere vulgar abuse: An insult that is not necessarily defamatory if it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation. Vituperative statements made in anger, such as calling someone "an arse" during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory.
  • Fair comment: Statements made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
  • Consent: In rare cases, a defendant can argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
  • Innocent dissemination: A defendant is not liable if they had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter. The defence can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence.
  • Incapability of further defamation: Historically, it was a defence at common law that the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defence was that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.[48]
  • Statute of limitations: Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication.[49]
  • No third-party communication: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement.
  • No actual injury: If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse.
  • Triviality: The trivial nature of a statement can be a defence in certain common law jurisdictions whereby a statement is not defamatory if it is so trivial in nature as to be incapable of materially injuring the plaintiff's reputation.[50]

Defamation per se

Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.[51] In an action for defamation per se, the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation per se, there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a per se action:[52]

  1. accusing someone of a crime;
  2. alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
  3. adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
  4. imputing serious sexual misconduct.

If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages.[52] As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se. This means that even if the statement would be considered defamatory per se if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation per se cannot survive.[53] The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality, ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation.[54]

Variations within common law jurisdictions

While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions; differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law, statutes and other legislative action, and constitutional concerns[d] specific to individual jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of injury, intentional infliction of emotional distress, involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". The tort of harassment created by Singapore's Protection from Harassment Act 2014 is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute.[44] There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract", and "negligent misrepresentation". In America, for example, the unique tort of false light protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading.[55] Libel and slander both require publication.[56]

Although laws vary by state; in America, a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:

  1. made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
  2. shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
  3. if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
  4. caused damages to the plaintiff.

Additionally, American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defence. While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice (i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth).[57][58] A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in an American court, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (i.e. actual malice).[59] The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles.[60] Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. An early example of libel is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish the New York Weekly Journal. When he printed another man's article criticising William Cosby, the royal governor of Colonial New York, Zenger was accused of seditious libel.[30] The verdict was returned as not guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The American Supreme Court overruled a state court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what The Times printed was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth".[61]

Many jurisdictions within the Commonwealth (e.g. Singapore,[62] Ontario,[63] and the United Kingdom[64]) have enacted legislation to:

  • Codify the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege
  • Provide that, while most instances of slander continue to require special damage to be proved (i.e. prove that pecuniary loss was caused by the defamatory statement), instances such as slander of title shall not
  • Clarify that broadcast statements (including those that are only broadcast in spoken form) constitute libel rather than slander.

Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the Defamation Act 2013.

Defamation in Indian tort law largely resembles that of England and Wales. Indian courts have endorsed[65] the defences of absolute[66] and qualified privilege,[67] fair comment,[68] and justification.[69] While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation,[70] there is no corresponding provision in India, though it is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent.[71] Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention.[72]

The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the American Revolution.[e] Though the First Amendment of the American Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by the state rather than defamation suits; thus, for most of American history, the Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice – that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".[74] Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims,[75] as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation.[76] Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet.[77]

American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law.[78] Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law.[52]

Australian law of defamation developed out of the English law of defamation and its cases; however, as in America, there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997).[79] In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia.[80] In addition to fixing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories, the laws made a number of reforms, including:

  • Abolishing the distinction between libel and slander.[81][82]
  • Providing new defences including that of triviality, where it is a defence to the publication of a defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.[50][82]
  • Providing that defences against defamation may be negated if there is proof the publication was actuated by malice.[50]
  • Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see e.g. Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than in defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.[83]

The 2006 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defence; previously a number of states only allowed a defence of truth with the condition that a public interest or benefit existed. The defendant however still needs to prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true.[84] The law as it currently stands in Australia was summarised in the 2015 case of Duffy v Google by Justice Blue in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[85][f]

Similarly, New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954.[86] New Zealand law allows for the following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages. Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed. As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory, there is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred. However, Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate.

As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in Quebec where the private law is derived from French civil law). In common law provinces and territories, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[87] Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication,[88] or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. [89][90]

Roman Dutch and Scots law

Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law (i.e. most of Southern Africa,[g] Indonesia, Suriname, and the Dutch Caribbean) gives rise to a claim by way of "actio iniuriarum". For liability under the actio iniuriarum, the general elements of delict must be present, but specific rules have been developed for each element. Causation, for example, is seldom in issue, and is assumed to be present. The elements of liability under the actio iniuriarum are as follows:

  • harm, in the form of a violation of a personality interest (one's corpus, dignitas and fama);
  • wrongful conduct;[h] and
  • intention.

Under the actio iniuriarum, harm consists in the infringement of a personality right, either "corpus", "dignitas", or "fama". Dignitas is a generic term meaning 'worthiness, dignity, self-respect', and comprises related concerns like mental tranquillity and privacy. Because it is such a wide concept, its infringement must be serious. Not every insult is humiliating; one must prove contumelia. This includes insult (iniuria in the narrow sense), adultery, loss of consortium, alienation of affection, breach of promise (but only in a humiliating or degrading manner), et cetera. "Fama" is a generic term referring to reputation and actio iniuriarum pertaining to it encompasses defamation more broadly Beyond simply covering actions that fall within the broader concept of defamation, "actio iniuriarum" relating to infringements of a person's corpus provides civil remedies for assaults, acts of a sexual or indecent nature, and 'wrongful arrest and detention'.

In Scots law, which is closely related to Roman Dutch law, the remedy for defamation is similarly the actio iniuriarium and the most common defence is "veritas" (i.e. proving the truth of otherwise defamatory statement). Defamation falls within the realm of non-patrimonial (i.e. dignitary) interests. The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non-patrimonial interests is said to be 'a thing of shreds and patches'.[91] This notwithstanding, there is 'little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law' in the development of mechanisms to protect so-called 'rights of personality'.[92] The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise, and afford reparation in, cases in which no patrimonial (or 'quasi-patrimonial') 'loss' has occurred, but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through the wrongful conduct of the defender. For such reparation to be offered, however, the non-patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted: negligent interference with a non-patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability.[93] An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious'[94] - that is, it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer's recognised personality interest that an intention to affront (animus iniuriandi) might be imputed.[95]

Other legal systems

Taiwan

There are four distinct systems of tort, and therefore civil defamation, law presently in force in Taiwan, three of which are in force in different regions administered by the People's Republic of China and one of which is in force in the Republic of China. Areas administered by the Republic of China include:

China

While tort law in China is generally governed by Book Seven ("Tort Liability") of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (CCPRC), liability for defamation is provided for in Book Four ("Personality Rights").[98] Article 1024 provides that "no organisation or individual may infringe upon other's right to reputation by insultation, defamation, or the like", defining "reputation" as "a social evaluation of the moral character, prestige, talent, and credit of a person".[98] In addition to damages, remedies for defamation may include the right to request a "correction" or the timely deletion of defamatory content.[98]

Qualified privilege for journalists and individuals acting "for public interest purposes" and such individuals "shall not bear civil liability for defamation except where one of the following situations exists:[98]

　　(1) he has fabricated or distorted the facts;
　　(2) he has failed to fulfill the obligation to reasonably verify[i] the seriously misrepresentative information provided by others; or
　　(3) he has used insulting words and the like to degrade the other's reputation".

Article 1027 provides that, while "literary or artistic work" depicts actual people "with insulting or defamatory content" that "infringes upon another persons' right to reputation" is considered defamation under the CCPRC, works which do "not depict a specific person" but "some patterns of the story are similar to the situation of such person" shall not constitute defamation.[98]

Republic of China

Liability for defamation under the Civil Code of the Republic of China stems from article 195 which provides for tort liability in the case of certain non-pecuniary injuries, particularly "reputation", "privacy", and "personality".[99]

France

While defamation law in most jurisdictions centres on the protection of individuals' dignity or reputation, defamation law in France is particularly rooted in protecting the privacy of individuals.[100] While the broader scope of the rights protected make defamation cases easier to prove in France than, for example, in England; awards in defamation cases are significantly lower and it is common for courts to award symbolic damages as low as €1.[100] Controversially, damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens, which has a chilling effect on criticism of public policy[101] While the only statutory defence available under French defamation law is to demonstrate the truth of the defamatory statement in question, a defence that is unavailable in cases involving an individual's personal life; French courts have recognised three additional exceptions:[102]

  • References to matters over ten years old
  • References to a person's pardoned or expunged criminal record
  • A plea of good faith, which may be made if the statement
    • pursues a legitimate aim
    • is not driven by animosity or malice
    • is prudent and measured in presentation
    • is backed by a serious investigation that dutifully sought to ascertain the truth of the statement.

Japan

Under article 723 of the Japanese Civil Code, a court is empowered to order a tortfeasor in a defamation case to "take suitable measures for the restoration of the [plaintiff's] reputation either in lieu of or together with compensation for damages".[103] An example of a civil defamation case in Japan can be found at Japan civil court finds against ZNTIR President Yositoki (Mitsuo) Hataya and Yoshiaki.

Philippines

In some systems, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defence.[104] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public".[105][106] In a 2012 ruling involving Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented, "Penal defamation laws should include defence of truth."[107]

Thailand

The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand provides that:

A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.

A person who makes a communication the untruth of which is unknown to him, does not thereby render himself liable to make compensation, if he or the receiver of the communication has a rightful interest in it.

The Court, when given judgment as to the liability for wrongful act and the amount of compensation, shall not be bound by the provisions of the criminal law concerning liability to punishment or by the conviction or non-conviction of the wrongdoer for a criminal offence.[108]

In practice, defamation law in Thailand has been found by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to be facilitate hostile and vexatious litigation by business interests seeking to suppress criticism.[109]

Quebec

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France and is presently established by Chapter III, Title 2 of Book One of the Civil Code of Quebec, which provides that "every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy".[110]

To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.[111]

Defamation as a crime

See also: Defamatory libel

In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as a criminal offence and provide for penalties as such. Article 19, a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps[112] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state.[113]

There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States, criminal defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states (Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead.[114]

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, America, and Canada.[4]

In a 2012 ruling on a complaint filed by a broadcaster who had been imprisoned for violating Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held that the criminalisation of libel without provision of a public figure doctrine – as in Philippine criminal law – violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[107]

Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of R v Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of the case told that the jury believed that "where a writing ... inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel."[115] This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify the exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel.

Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732). In this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews". The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had a child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed."[116] Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of the crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence.[117] For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts.

As of 2017, at least 130 UNESCO member states retained criminal defamation laws.[118] In 2017, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media issued a report on criminal defamation and anti-blasphemy laws among its member states, which found that defamation is criminalised in nearly three-quarters (42) of the 57 OSCE participating states. Many of the laws pertaining to defamation include specific provisions for harsher punishment for speech or publications critical of heads of state, public officials, state bodies and the state itself. The OSCE report also noted that blasphemy and religious insult laws exist in around one third of OSCE participating states; many of these combine blasphemy and religious insult with elements of hate speech legislation.[3]

In Africa, at least four member states decriminalised defamation between 2012 and 2017. The ruling by the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in Lohé Issa Konaté v. The Republic of Burkina Faso set a precedent in the region against imprisonment as a legitimate penalty for defamation, framing it as a violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Countries in every region have moved to further extend criminal defamation law to online content. Cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws passed throughout the world have led to bloggers appearing before courts, with some serving time in prison.[118]

In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions, criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition, false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions. The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries.

Criticism

While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation, criminal defamation is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict freedom of expression. Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation.[119][120] The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law.[18] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986).

The United Nations, OSCE, Organization of American States (OAS) and African Union Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression stated in a joint declaration in March 2017 that "general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including 'false news' or 'non-objective information', are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression ... and should be abolished."[118]

By jurisdiction

Criminal defamation laws by country[5]
Country Criminal offences Custodial sentences
  Albania Yes No
  Andorra Yes Yes
  Armenia Unclear Unclear
  Austria Yes Yes
  Azerbaijan Yes Yes
  Belarus Yes Yes
  Belgium Yes Yes
  Bosnia and Herzegovina No No
  Bulgaria Yes No
  Canada Yes Yes
  Croatia Yes Yes
  Cyprus Yes Yes
  Czech Republic Yes Yes
  Denmark Yes Yes
  Estonia Yes Yes
  Finland Yes Yes
  France Yes No
  Georgia Unclear Unclear
  Germany Yes Yes
  Greece Yes Yes
  Hungary Yes Yes
  Iceland Yes Yes
  India[121] Yes Yes
  Ireland[122] No No
  Italy Yes Yes
  Japan[123] Yes Yes
  Kazakhstan Yes Yes
  Kyrgyzstan No No
  Latvia Yes Yes
  Liechtenstein Yes Yes
  Lithuania Yes Yes
  Luxembourg Yes Yes
  Malta Yes Yes
  Moldova No No
  Monaco Yes Yes
  Mongolia Yes No
  Montenegro Yes Yes
  Netherlands Yes Yes
  North Macedonia Yes No
  Norway Yes Yes
  Poland Yes Yes
  Portugal Yes Yes
  Romania No No
  Russia Yes Yes
  San Marino Yes Yes
  Serbia Yes Yes
  Slovakia Yes Yes
  Slovenia Yes Yes
  Spain Yes Yes
  Sweden Yes Yes
  Switzerland Yes Yes
  Tajikistan Yes Yes
  Turkey Yes Yes
  Turkmenistan Yes Yes
  Ukraine No No
  United Kingdom Yes No
  United States Unclear No
  Uzbekistan Yes Yes
   Vatican City Yes Yes

Albania

According to the Criminal Code of Albania, defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from 40000 ALL (c. $350) to one million ALL (c. $8350).[124] If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $25100).[125] In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment.[126][127]

Argentina

In Argentina, the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter "Crimes Against Honor" (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as "the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit" (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).

He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to 3 years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd).[128]

Austria

In Austria, the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code. Related criminal offences include "slander and assault" (Article 115), that happens "if a person insults, mocks, mistreats or threatens will ill-treatment another one in public", and yet "malicious falsehood" (Article 297), defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution.[129]

Azerbaijan

In Azerbaijan, the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to "500 times the amount of minimum salaries", public work for up to 240 hours, correctional work for up to one year, or imprisonment of up to six months. Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime "of grave or very grave nature" (Article 147.2). The crime of insult (Article 148) can lead to a fine of up to 1,000 times the minimum wage, or to the same penalties of defamation for public work, correctional work or imprisonment. [130][131]

According to the OSCE report on defamation laws, "Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code".[132]

Belgium

In Belgium, crimes against honor are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code, Articles 443 to 453-bis. Someone is guilty of calumny "when law admits proof of the alleged fact" and of defamation "when law does not admit this evidence" (Article 443). The penalty is eight days to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine (Article 444). In addition, the crime of "calumnious denunciation" (Article 445) is punished with 15 days to six months in prison, plus a fine. In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) "when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race, colour of the skin, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, age, patrimony, philosophical or religious belief, present or future health condition, disability, native language, political belief, physical or genetical characteristic, or social origin".[133][134]

Brazil

In Brazil, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as "defamation" (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), "calumny" (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) or "injury" (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III) or against a state employee because of his regular duties. Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like bullying or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of "illegal constraint" (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and "arbitrary exercise of discretion" (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a vigilante.[135]

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, defamation is formally a criminal offence, but the penalty of imprisonment was abolished in 1999. Articles 146 (insult), 147 (criminal defamation) and 148 (public insult) of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine.[136]

Canada

In Canada, the Criminal Code specifies the following as criminal offences:

  • Defamatory libel, defined as "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published",[137] receives the same penalty.[138]
  • A "libel known to be false" is an indictable offence, for which the prison term is a maximum of five years.[139]

The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied, but it has been observed that, when treated as an indictable offence, it often appears to arise from statements made against an agent of the Crown, such as a police officer, a corrections officer, or a Crown attorney.[140] In the most recent case, in 2012, an Ottawa restaurant owner was convicted of ongoing online harassment of a customer who had complained about the quality of food and service in her restaurant.[141]

According to an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe official report on defamation laws issued in 2005, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted – 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was 4 years of imprisonment.[142]

Croatia

In Croatia, the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison, or a fine of "up to 100 daily incomes" (Criminal Code, Article 199). If the crime is committed in public, penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment, or a fine of "up to 150 daily incomes" (Article 199–2). Moreover, the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation. The maximum penalty is one year in prison, or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes (Article 200–1). If the crime is committed in public, the prison term can reach one year (Article 200–2). On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the specific context is that of a scientific work, literary work, work of art, public information conducted by a politician or a government official, journalistic work, or the defence of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases provided that the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone's reputation.[143]

Chile

In Chile, the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation (injurias) are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as "the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution" (Article 412). If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is "lower imprisonment" in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 "vital wages" when it refers to a crime, or "lower imprisonment" in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to ten "vital wages" when it refers to a misdemeanor (Article 413). If it is not written or with publicity, penalty is "lower imprisonment" in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to fifteen "vital wages" when it is about a crime, or plus a fine of six to ten "vital wages" when it is about a misdemeanor (Article 414).[144][145]

According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, "lower imprisonment" is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years. According to Article 30, the penalty of "lower imprisonment" in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.[146]

Article 416 defines injuria as "all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt". Article 417 defines broadly injurias graves (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. "Grave slander" in written form or with publicity are punished with "lower imprisonment" in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of eleven to twenty "vital wages". Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and heirs of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander.[147]

China

In the Chinese mainland, Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国刑法) makes serious defamation punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention upon complaint, unless it is against the government.[148]

In areas administered by the Republic of China, Article 310 of the Criminal Code (中華民國刑法) criminalises defamation, held constitutional on 7 July 2000 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan (司法院大法官).[149] The court's reasoning in upholding the law was that, while Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of China protects freedom of speech, the right is "subject to suitable restraints" where this is necessary to "protect other fundamental rights, such as personal reputation and privacy".[149] While Article 310 provides that an individual accused of criminal defamation is to be acquitted if they are able to prove the truth of the defamatory statement in question; the court interpreted this to mean that, even if the accused fails to demonstrate that the statement was true, they may not be convicted if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true when it was made and that the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.[149] The continued criminalisation of defamation in the Republic of China is controversial, with an editorial in the Taipei Times published in January 2022 arguing that prosecutors, being "a common asset of society", ought to "put all their efforts into major crimes rather than private disputes" and that criminal defamation "inappropriately" transforms the nations' courts into courts of "folk morality".[150]

Czech Republic

According to the Czech Criminal Code, Article 184, defamation is a crime. Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year (Article 184–1) or, if the crime is committed through the press, film, radio, TV, publicly accessible computer network, or by "similarly effective" methods, the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity.[151] However, only the most severe cases will be subject to criminal prosecution. The less severe cases can be solved by an action for apology, damages or injunctions.

Denmark

In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. In addition, Article 266-b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or "sexual inclination".[152][153]

Finland

In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to the Criminal Code (Chapter 24, Sections 9 and 10), punishable with a fine, or, if aggravated, with up to two years' imprisonment or a fine. Defamation is defined as spreading a false report or insinuation apt to cause harm to a person, or otherwise disparaging someone. Defamation of the deceased may also constitute an offence if apt to cause harm to surviving loved ones. In addition, there is a crime called "dissemination of information violating personal privacy" (Chapter 24, Section 8), which consists in disseminating information, even accurate, in a way that is apt to harm someone's right to privacy. Information that may be relevant with regard to a person's conduct in public office, in business, or in a comparable position, or of information otherwise relevant to a matter of public interest, is not covered by this prohibition.[154][155] Finnish criminal law has no provisions penalizing the defamation of corporate entities, only of natural persons.

France

 
Front page of La Vie Illustrée on 25 July 1902. Mme Camille du Gast stands in court during the cases of character defamation by the barrister Maître Barboux, and the Prince of Sagan's assault on Barboux.

In France, defamation is a criminal offence defined as "the allegation or [the] allocation of a fact that damages the honor or reputation of the person or body to which the fact is imputed". A defamatory allegation is considered an insult if it does not include any facts or if the claimed facts cannot be verified.

Germany

In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. As of 2006, German defamation lawsuits are increasing.[156] The relevant offences of Germany's Criminal Code are §90 (denigration of the Federal President), §90a (denigration of the [federal] State and its symbols), §90b (unconstitutional denigration of the organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (defamation of character), §187 (defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (denigration of a deceased person), §192 ("insult" with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are §190 (criminal conviction as proof of truth), §193 (no defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), §194 (application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and §200 (method of proclamation).

Greece

In Greece, the maximum prison term for defamation, libel or insult was five years, while the maximum fine was €15,000.[157]

The crime of insult (Article 361, § 1, of the Penal Code) may have led to up to one year of imprisonment or a fine, while unprovoked insult (Article 361-A, § 1) was punished with at least three months in prison. In addition, defamation may have resulted in up to two months in prison or a fine, while aggravated defamation could have led to at least three months of prison, plus a possible fine (Article 363) and deprivation of the offender's civil rights. Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to six months (Penal Code, Article 365). [158]

India

In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law or cyber crime law, together or in sequence.[159]

According to the Constitution of India,[160] the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions":

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

  • (1) All citizens shall have the right—
    • (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
  • [(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.]

Accordingly, for the purpose of criminal defamation, "reasonable restrictions" are defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[121][161] This section defines defamation and provides ten valid exceptions when a statement is not considered to be defamation. It says that defamation takes place, when someone "by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person". The punishment is simple imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both (Section 500).

Some other offences related to false allegations: false statements regarding elections (Section 171G), false information (Section 182), false claims in court (Section 209), false criminal charges (Section 211).

Some other offences related to insults: against public servants in judicial proceedings (Section 228), against religion or religious beliefs (Section 295A), against religious feelings (Section 298), against breach of peace (Section 504), against modesty of women (Section 509).

According to the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[162] defamation is prosecuted only upon a complaint (within six months from the act) (Section 199), and is a bailable, non-cognisable and compoundable offence (See: The First Schedule, Classification of Offences).

Ireland

See also: Blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland, Censorship in the Republic of Ireland, and Statute of Limitations in Ireland

According to the (revised) Defamation Act 2009,[122] the last criminal offences (Sections 36‍–‍37, blasphemy) seem to have been repealed. The statute of limitations is one year from the time of first publication (may be extended to two years by the courts) (Section 38).

The 2009 Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961, which had, together with the underlying principles of the common law of tort, governed Irish defamation law for almost half a century. The 2009 Act represents significant changes in Irish law, as many believe that it previously attached insufficient importance to the media's freedom of expression and weighed too heavily in support of the individual's right to a good name.[163]

Israel

According to Defamation Prohibition Law[full citation needed] (1965), defamation can constitute either civil or criminal offence.

As a civil offence, defamation is considered a tort case and the court may award a compensation of up to NIS 50,000 to the person targeted by the defamation, while the plaintiff does not have to prove a material damage.

As a criminal offence, defamation is punishable by a year of imprisonment. In order to constitute a felony, defamation must be intentional and target at least two persons.

Italy

In Italy, there used to be different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the penal code) referred to the act of offending someone's honor in their presence and was punishable with up to six months in prison or a fine of up to €516. The crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one's reputation before many persons, and is punishable with a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to €1,032 in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of €2,065 if the offence consists in the attribution of a determined fact. When the offence happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least €516. Both of them were "a querela di parte" crimes, that is, the victim had the right of choosing, in any moment, to stop the criminal prosecution by withdrawing the "querela" (a formal complaint), or even prosecute the fact only with a civil action with no "querela" and therefore no criminal prosecution at all. However, beginning from 15 January 2016, injury is no longer a crime, but a tort, while defamation is still considered a crime like before.[164]

Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.[165][166]

Deliberately false accusations of defamation, as with any other crime, lead to the crime of calumny (Article 368, Penal Code), which, under the Italian legal system, is defined as the crime of falsely accusing, before the authorities, a person of a crime they did not commit.

As to the trial, judgment on the legality of the evidence fades into its relevance.[167]

Japan

The Japanese Penal Code[123] (note: translation from government, but still not official text) seems to prescribe these related offences:

  • "False Accusations" (false: indictment / criminal charge / criminal accusation / information) (Article 172)
  • "Defamation" (slander/libel) (truth being irrelevant, but with: "Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest") (Articles 230, 230-2. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint")
  • "Insults" (Article 231. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint")
  • "Damage to Credibility; Obstruction of Business" (defamation of businesses) (Article 233)

Additionally, there is an exception stemming from Article XXI of the Constitution concerning freedom of the press, which provides that media outlets can avoid liability for defamation if they reasonably believed the defamatory statements they published to be true.[168]

The Constitution of Japan[169] reads:

Article 21.

Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.

No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, defamation is both a tort and a criminal offence meant to protect the reputation and good name of a person. The principal statutes relied upon are the Defamation Act 1957 (Revised 1983) and the Penal Code. Following the practice of other common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Singapore, and India, Malaysia relies on case law. In fact, the Defamation Act 1957 is similar with the English Defamaiton Act 1952. The Malaysian Penal Code is pari materia with the Indian and Singaporean Penal Codes.

Mexico

In Mexico, crimes of calumny, defamation and slanderous allegation (injurias) have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in fifteen states. These crimes remain in the penal codes of seventeen states, where penalty is, in average, from 1.1 years (for ones convicted for slanderous allegation) to 3.8 years in jail (for those convicted for calumny).[170]

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court. Article 167 of book 6 of the Civil Code holds: "When someone is liable towards another person under this Section because of an incorrect or, by its incompleteness, misleading publication of information of factual nature, the court may, upon a right of action (legal claim) of this other person, order the tortfeasor to publish a correction in a way to be set by court." If the court grants an injunction, the defendant is usually ordered to delete the publication or to publish a rectification statement.

Norway

In Norway, defamation was a crime punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine (Penal Code, Chapter 23, § 246). When the offense is likely to harm one's "good name" and reputation, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum prison term went up to one year, and if the defamation happens in print, in broadcasting or through an especially aggravating circumstance, imprisonment may have reached two years (§ 247). When the offender acts "against his better judgment", he was liable to a maximum prison term of three years (§ 248). According to § 251, defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person, unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons, when it may also have been prosecuted by public authorities.[171][172]

Under the new Penal Code, decided upon by the Parliament in 2005, defamation would cease to exist as a crime. Rather, any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits. The Criminal Code took effect on 1 October 2015.

Poland

In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him "to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity". Penalties include fine, limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code). The penalty is more severe when the offence happens through the media (Article 212.2).[173] When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is three years.[174]

Portugal

In Portugal, defamation crimes are: "defamation" (article 180 of the Penal Code; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), "injuries" (art. 181; up to three months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and "offence to the memory of a deceased person" (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of "public knowledge of the court decision" (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of "incitement of a crime" (article 297; up to three years in prison, or fine).[175][176]

Romania

As of 2022, there is no such crime as libel, insult or defamation.[177]

Philippines

Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines addresses Crimes Against Honor. Chapter one of that title addresses libel and slander. Libel is defined as "public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead". Slander is defined as oral defamation. Slander by deed is defined as "any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person". Penalties of fine or imprisonment are specified for these crimes and for the threat of libel.[104] A notable characteristic of these crimes under Philippine law is the specification that they apply to imputations both real and imaginary. The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled in 2012 that the libel law of the Philippines was inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as urging that "State parties [to the Covenant] should consider the decriminalisation of libel".[107]

Saudi Arabia

In Saudi Arabia, defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable under terrorism legislation.[178] In a 2015 case, a Saudi writer was arrested for defaming a former ruler of the country. Reportedly, under a [2014] counterterrorism law, "actions that 'threaten Saudi Arabia's unity, disturb public order, or defame the reputation of the state or the king' are considered acts of terrorism. The law decrees that a suspect can be held incommunicado for 90 days without the presence of their lawyer during the initial questioning."[179]

South Korea

See also: Cyber defamation law § South Korea

In South Korea, both true and false statements can be considered defamation.[180] The penalties increase for false statements. It is also possible for a person to be criminally defamed when they are no longer alive.[181]

Criminal defamation occurs when a public statement damages the subject's reputation, unless the statement was true and presented solely for the public interest.[181] In addition to criminal law, which allows for imprisonment (up to seven years in case the allegations are false) and monetary fines, in South Korea one can also sue for damages with civil actions. Generally, criminal actions proceed civil ones with South Korean police as judicial investigators.

Former Soviet Union

In the former Soviet Union, defamatory insults can "only constitute a criminal offence, not a civil wrong".[182]

Spain

In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of the Penal Code) consists of accusing someone of a crime knowing the falsity of the accusation, or with a reckless contempt for truth. Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months-fine, and for other cases only a fine of six to twelve months-fine (Article 206). Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone's dignity, depreciating his reputation or injuring his self-esteem, and is only applicable if the offence, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong. Injury has a penalty of fine from three to seven months-fine, or from six to fourteen months-fine when it is strong and with publicity. According to Article 216, an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge, determining the publication of the judicial decision (in a newspaper) at the expenses of the defamer.[183][184]

Sweden

In Sweden, denigration (ärekränkning) is criminalised by Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Article 1 regulates defamation (förtal) and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as "having a reprehensible way of living", or of providing information about them "intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others". The penalty is a fine.[185] It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue; it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.[186][187]

Article 2 regulates gross defamation (grovt förtal) and has a penalty of up to two years in prison or a fine. In judging if the crime is gross, the court should consider whether the information, because of its content or the scope of its dissemination, is calculated to produce "serious damage".[185] For example, if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths.[186] Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2.[185] Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someone's parents as a way to bypass the law.[186]

Article 3 regulates other insulting behaviour (förolämpning), not characterised under Article 1 or 2, and is punishable with a fine or, if it is gross, with up to six months of prison or a fine.[185] While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behaviour.[186]

Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration.[188]

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the crime of wilful defamation is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least thirty days' fine, according to Article 174-2 of the Swiss Criminal Code. There is wilful defamation when the offender knows the falsity of his/her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one's victim (see Articles 174-1 and 174–2).[189][190]

On the other hand, defamation is punished only with a maximum monetary penalty of 180 daily penalty units (Article 173–1).[191] When it comes to a deceased or absent person, there is a limitation to enforce the law up to 30 years (after the death).[192]

With the rise of the internet, and also intranets (closed computer networks), defamatory statements may be communicated on webpages or internal memos, without reaching the attention of the courts. Such "closet defamation" may be used to conceal other criminal or negligent acts.

Thailand

The Thai Criminal Code provides that:

Section 326. Defamation

Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Section 327. Defamation to the Family

Whoever, imputing anything the deceased person before the third person, and that imputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of the deceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation, and shall be punished as prescribed by Section 326.[193]

Criminal defamation charges in Thailand under Section 326 of the Criminal Code are frequently used to censor journalists and activists critical of human rights circumstances for workers in the country.[109]

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom abolished criminal libel on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.[194] There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.

Under English common law, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defence only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace, rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation per se; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defence in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the "public benefit".[195]

United States

Main article: United States defamation law § Criminal defamation

Less than half of American states have criminal defamation laws, but the applicability of those laws is limited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the laws are rarely enforced.[196] There are no criminal defamation or insult laws at the federal level. However, on the state level, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books: Alabama,[197] Florida,[198] Idaho,[199] Illinois,[200] Kansas,[201] Kentucky,[202] Louisiana,[203] Massachusetts,[204] Michigan,[205] Minnesota,[206] Mississippi,[207] Montana,[208] Nevada,[209] New Hampshire,[210] New Mexico,[211] North Carolina,[212] North Dakota,[213] Oklahoma,[214] South Carolina,[215] Texas,[216] Utah,[217] Virginia,[218] Wisconsin,[219] Puerto Rico[220] and Virgin Islands.[221] In addition, Iowa criminalizes defamation through case law without statutorily defining it as a crime.[222]

Noonan v. Staples[223] is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defence to libel in the U.S., but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because Staples did not argue First Amendment protection, which is one theory for truth as complete defence, for its statements.[224] The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties.

Venezuela

In March 2016, a civil action for defamation led to imposition of a four-year prison sentence on a newspaper publisher.[225]

Online defamation

Further information: Cyber defamation law

The rise of the internet as a medium for publication and the expression of ideas, including the emergence of social media platforms transcending national boundaries, has proven challenging to reconcile with traditional notions of defamation law. Questions of jurisdiction and conflicting limitation periods in trans-border online defamation cases, liability for hyperlinks to defamatory content, filing lawsuits against anonymous parties, and the liability of internet service providers and intermediaries make online defamation a uniquely complicated area of law.[226] As a result, courts and legislatures in different jurisdictions have approached online defamation in a variety of different and conflicting ways.

In South Korea, the rise of the internet has led to the emergence of cyber defamation law as a distinct and polarising field of law.[227][228] Some Korean celebrities who suffered from severe depression linked malicious online comments later committed suicide,[j] which served in part to stimulate moves to strengthen cyber defamation law. The vast majority of cyber defamation police reports in South Korea arise from online games, and, in 2015 alone, South Korean law enforcement received and investigated over 8,000 reports of cyber defamation; over half of these cases involve League of Legends, where players head to police stations as a retaliation after being verbally abused by teammates or opponents.[229] There are even 'settlement fee hunters', where players enter games and grief with intention of being insulted by other players. In some cases, such settlement fee hunters file police reports against over 50 other individuals at once. Most of the victims of settlement fee hunters are teenagers, since many parents are willing to pay settlement fees ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 KRW (US$300–2000) to avoid their children having to go to trial and risk gaining criminal records.

In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titled Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Essentially, this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as: "Libel – the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future." Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law, electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from six years and one day to up to twelve years.[230][231][232] As of 30 September 2012, five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.[233]

Australia's first Twitter defamation case to go to trial is believed to be Mickle v Farley. The defendant, former Orange High School student Andrew Farley was ordered to pay $105,000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform.[234] A more recent case in defamation law was Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015], heard in the Federal Court of Australia.[235] This judgment was significant as it demonstrated that tweets, consisting of even as little as three words, can be defamatory, as was held in this case.[235]

Regarding defamation on the internet, in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law.[236][237]

In Singapore, Division 2 of Part 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 provides for individuals who have been affected by false statements online to seek a variety of court orders under the tort of harassment that are not available under the pre-internet tort of defamation:[44]

  • Stop Publication Order (an order requiring the tortfeasor to stop making the defamatory statement)
  • Correction Order (an order for the tortfeasor to publish a correction of the statement)
  • Disabling Order (an order requiring an internet-based intermediaries to disable access to the defamatory statement).

This is distinct from and does not affect plaintiffs right of action under the common law torts of libel and slander as modified by the Defamation Act 1957.[62] The Protection of Harassment Act 2014, which provides for criminal penalties in addition to civil remedies, is specifically designed to address a narrower scope of conduct in order to avoid outlawing an overly broad range of speech, and is confined to addressing speech that causes "harassment, alarm, or distress".[44]

Beyond simply addressing novel instances of defamation enabled by the rise of the internet, courts around the world have also had to deal with complex jurisdictional issues regarding trans-border online defamation. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia responded to this emerging phenomenon by vastly expanding the international jurisdiction of Australian courts in its judgment in Dow Jones v Gutnick.[238] The judgment established that internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Dow Jones v Gutnick is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.[239] This decision was criticised in the United States,[240] though it mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

In response to the expansion of other jurisdictions' attempts to enforce judgements in cases of trans-border defamation and to a rise in domestic strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) following the rise of the internet, the Federal and many state governments in America have adopted statutes limiting the enforceability of offshore defamation judgments and expediting the dismissal of defamation claims. American writers and publishers are shielded from the enforcement of offshore libel judgments not compliant under the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010.[241] It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as "Rachel's Law", after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws).[242] Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously.

A New Yorker report revealed an online defamation campaign orchestrated by the United Arab Emirates. The Arab country paid millions of euros to a Swiss firm, Alp Services, which put the Emirati money to run campaigns against the targets, including Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed hired Alp "to obtain concrete evidence" about the two targets and according run 'dark PR'. Under the campaign, Alp made defamatory Wikipedia entries and published propaganda articles against the Emirati targets.[243]

Religious views

Catholic

Further information: Detraction

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines slander as "the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent".

The effects of it are "a twofold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor's good name and that of lying as well. Theologians say that this latter guilt considered in itself, in so far as it is an offence against veracity, may not be grievous, but that nevertheless it will frequently be advisable to mention it in confession, in order that the extent and method of reparation may be settled."[244]

Defamation in said to be a violation of the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Joseph Deharbe lists two possible reasons when one is "allowed, and even bound, to reveal them, 1. When it is for the good of the guilty person; or 2. When it is necessary for preventing a greater evil."[245]

In the Epistle of James there are two references to defamation: "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man"; and again, "The tongue is indeed a little member, and boasts great things. Behold how small a fire what a great wood it kindles." (James 3:2,5)

Based on these verse, the Roman Catechism makes the following statement: "from these words of St. James we learn two salutary truths: the one, that the vice of the tongue is of great extent, a truth which derives additional confirmation from these words of the prophet, 'Every man is a liar' (Ps. 115:11); whence this moral disease would seem to be almost the only one which extends to all mankind: the other, that the tongue is the source of innumerable evils."[246]

Jean-Baptiste Massillon gives a lengthy sermon on defamation in which he states, "the tongue of the slanderer is a devouring fire, which tarnishes whatever it touches; which exercises its fury on the good grain, equally as on the chaff; on the profane, as on the sacred; which wherever it passes, leaves only desolation and ruin; digs even into the bowels of the earth, and fixes itself on things the most hidden; turns into vile ashes, what, only a moment before, had appeared to us so precious and brilliant."[247]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ In some, but not all, civil and mixed law jurisdictions, the term delict is used to refer to this category of civil wrong, though it can also refer to criminal offences in some jurisdictions and tort is the general term used in comparative law.For instance, despite the common belief that the term "tort" exclusively refers to civil liability in common law jurisdictions, Wikipedia has articles discussing conflict of tort laws, European tort law, and Tort Law in China, only using the term delict in articles about jurisdictions which specifically use the term to refer to torts (e.g., Scots Law of Delict and South African law of delict). Similarly, the English version of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, uses the term "tortfeasor" to refer to individuals who incur civil liability.[23]
  2. ^ In recent times, internet publications such as defamatory comments on social media can also constitute libel
  3. ^ While this holds true in the majority of common law jurisdictions, particularly in the Commonwealth, a number of common law jurisdictions no longer recognise any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The American Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[42]
  4. ^ For instance, Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provide protection for freedom of expression which courts must take into account in developing the case law regarding defamation
  5. ^ one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defence against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defence acquitted itself as a matter of law, as before the Zenger case defamation law had not provided the defence of truth.[73]
  6. ^ The tort can be divided up into the following ingredients:
    • the defendant participates in publication to a third party of a body of work;
    • the body of work contains a passage alleged to be defamatory;
    • the passage conveys an imputation;
    • the imputation is about the plaintiff;
    • the imputation is damaging to the plaintiff's reputation.[85]: para 158 
  7. ^ The vast majority of southern African states apply Roman Dutch law with regard to their law of obligations, having adopted South African law (which generally applies Roman Dutch private law despite public law deriving from English common law) via reception statute under colonial rule
  8. ^ Conduct usually takes the form of statements, either oral or in writing; nevertheless, other forms of conduct, such as physical contact or gestures, could also arise. The principles are the same as those applicable to the Aquilian action
  9. ^ To determine whether an actor has fulfilled the obligation to reasonably verify the information as provided in Subparagraph 2 of the preceding Article, the following factors shall be considered:
    　　(1) the credibility of the source of the information;
    　　(2) whether the information that is clearly controversial has been fully investigated;
    　　(3) the timeliness of the information;
    　　(4) the relevance of the information with public order and good morals;
    　　(5) the likelihood that the victim's reputation would be degraded; and
    　　(6) his ability to verify and the cost for the verification of the information
  10. ^ Examples include:

References

  1. ^ "Defamation". Legal Information Institute.
  2. ^ "Defamation | Definition, Slander vs. Libel, & Facts". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 14 September 2022.
  3. ^ a b Scott Griffen (Director of Press Freedom Programmes, International Press Institute) (7 March 2017), Barbara Trionfi (Executive Director, International Press Institute) (ed.), Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (Commissioned by the Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović)
  4. ^ a b Libel and Insult Laws: A matrix on where we stand and what we would like to achieve, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (prepared by the office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media), 9 March 2005
  5. ^ a b Scott Griffen (Director of Press Freedom Programmes, International Press Institute) (7 March 2017), Barbara Trionfi (Executive Director, International Press Institute) (ed.), Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (Commissioned by the Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović), pp. 31–33
  6. ^ Digest 47. 10. 15. 2. 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ^ Digest 47. 10. 15. 3–6. 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ^ Digest 47. 10. 15. 25. 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ^ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  10. ^ Gates, Jay Paul; Marafioti, Nicole (2014). Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England. p. 150. ISBN 9781843839187.
  11. ^ Lassiter, John C. (1978). "Defamation of Peers: The Rise and Decline of the Action for Scandalum Magnatum, 1497-1773". The American Journal of Legal History. 22 (3): 216–236. doi:10.2307/845182. JSTOR 845182.
  12. ^ a b "Libel and slander". www.jewishencyclopedia.com.
  13. ^ Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Slander" . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  14. ^ "Detraction". Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17 February 2007.
  15. ^ a b Saad, Hasbollah Bin Mat. "Defamation: A Comparative Study Between the Malaysian Laws and the Islamic Legal Principles."
  16. ^ Mohamad, Abdul Basir. (2009). Undang-undang Tort Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. pp. 383-384.
  17. ^ a b Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression (February 2004). "Briefing Notes on International and Comparative Defamation Standards" (PDF). Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  18. ^ a b Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression (2021). "Response to the consultations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on her report on disinformation" (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  19. ^ "European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols". www.hri.org.
  20. ^ Tjaco Van Den Hout (15 February 2013). "Freedom of Expression and Defamation". Latvijas Ārpolitikas Institūts. Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  21. ^ "Chapter 2: Bill of Rights". Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, as amended. Government Printer. 1996 – via Wikisource.
  22. ^ "The Constitution of Kenya" – via Wikisource.
  23. ^ Congress, National People's. "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" – via Wikisource.
  24. ^ Vick, Douglas W.; Macpherson, Linda (1 April 1997). "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law". Federal Communications Law Journal. 49 (3). Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  25. ^ John William Salmond (1907). The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries. Stevens and Haynes. p. 385. Retrieved 15 March 2013. english law individual corporation defamation.
  26. ^ Howard, Sam (15 March 2007). "Defamation of corporate entities in England". Lexology. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
  27. ^ False:
    • Ron Hankin, Navigating the Legal Minefield of Private Investigations: A Career-Saving Guide for Private Investigators, Detectives, And Security Police, Looseleaf Law Publications, 2008, p. 59. "There are five essential elements to defamation: (1) The accusation is false; and (2) it impeaches the subject's character; and (3) it is published to a third person; and (4) it damages the reputation of the subject; and (5) that the accusation is done intentionally or with fault such as wanton disregard of facts."
    • Roger LeRoy Miller, Gaylord A. Jentz, Business Law Today: The Essentials, Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 115. "In other words, making a negative statement about another person is not defamation unless the statement is false and represents something as a fact (for example, 'Vladik cheats on his taxes') rather than a personal opinion (for example, 'Vladik is a jerk')."
    • Michael G. Parkinson, L. Marie Parkinson, Law for advertising, broadcasting, journalism, and public relations, Routledge, 2006, p. 273. "Simplifying a very complicated decision, the court said that because the plaintiff must prove a statement is false in order to win an action in defamation, it is impossible to win an action in defamation if the statement, by its very nature, cannot be proven false."
    • Edward Lee Lamoureux, Steven L. Baron, Claire Stewart, Intellectual property law and interactive media: free for a fee, Peter Lang, 2009, p. 190. "A statement can only be defamatory if it is false; therefore true statements of fact about others, regardless of the damage rendered, are not defamatory (although such comments might represent other sorts of privacy or hate speech violations). Defamation may occur when one party (the eventual defendant if a case goes forward) writes or says something that is false about a second party (plaintiff) such that some third party 'receives' the communication, and the communication of false information damages the plaintiff".
  28. ^ Linda L. Edwards, J. Stanley Edwards, Patricia Kirtley Wells, Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Cengage Learning, 2008, p. 390. "Libel refers to written defamatory statements; slander refers to oral statements. Libel encompasses communications occurring in 'physical form'... defamatory statements on records and computer tapes are considered libel rather than slander."
  29. ^ "Libel". 2010. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  30. ^ a b Benenson, R (1981). "Trial of john peter zenger for libel". The CQ Researcher. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  31. ^ Peterson, Iver (21 March 1997). . The New York Times. Houston. Archived from the original on 15 November 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  32. ^ "Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit". Amarillo: Amarillo.com. 6 August 1999. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  33. ^ . Archived from the original on 6 February 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  34. ^ Burton, John (30 September 2008). "Death of Singaporean maverick". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 10 December 2022. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  35. ^ "J. B. Jeyaretnam". Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada. 26 March 2012. from the original on 28 September 2018. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
  36. ^ Cameron Sim, The Singapore Chill: Political Defamation and the Normalization of a Statist Rule of Law, 20 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 319 (2011).
  37. ^ High Court awards PM Lee $210,000 in damages in defamation suits against TOC editor Terry Xu and article author (The Straits Times) 1 September 2021
  38. ^ Rafsanjani, Nazanin (2 April 2010). . On The Media. WNYC (National Public Radio, PBS). Archived from the original on 21 May 2013. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  39. ^ Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16
  40. ^ "Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015". Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  41. ^ Brown, Mayer (2013). (PDF). Advocates for International Development. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 February 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
  42. ^ Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
  43. ^ Franklin, Mark A. (1963). "The Origins and Constitutionality of Limitations on Truth as a Defense in Tort Law". Stanford Law Review. 16 (4): 789–848. doi:10.2307/1227028. JSTOR 1227028. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  44. ^ a b c d "Protection from Harassment Act 2014 - Singapore Statutes Online". sso.agc.gov.sg.[permanent dead link]
  45. ^ Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis.2d 146, 158, 140 N.W.2d 417, 423 (1966).
  46. ^ "Equity and Rights in Society, Defamation Defences". Hobart Community Legal Service Inc. 20 March 2018. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  47. ^ "Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges". Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  48. ^ "Is Your Reputation So Bad You Cannot Be Defamed?". Hodgson Russ LLP. 9 June 2020. from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  49. ^ Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
  50. ^ a b c (PDF). legislation.nsw.gov.au. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  51. ^ "Dancing With Lawyers". Dancing With Lawyers. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  52. ^ a b c Bossary, Andrew (3 June 2014). . American Bar Association. Archived from the original on 31 October 2017. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  53. ^ "Defamation". Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  54. ^ "Label of Gay Is No Longer Defamatory, Court Rules". The New York Times. Associated Press. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
  55. ^ Edward C. Martin. "False light". 27 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
  56. ^ 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1–546
  57. ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)
  58. ^ Sexton, Kevin (2010). . Archived from the original on 18 February 2011. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  59. ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
  60. ^ "Foreword". stylebook.fredericksburg.com. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  61. ^ Patterson, T (2009). The American Democracy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  62. ^ a b "Defamation Act 1957". Singapore Statutes Online. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
  63. ^ "Law Document English View". Ontario.ca. 24 July 2014.
  64. ^ Defamation Act 1952
  65. ^ "Defamation under Law of Torts". LawPage.In. 19 October 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  66. ^ Pukhraj v State of Rajasthan [1973] SCC (Cri) 944.
  67. ^ Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr v Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and Ors. (1970) 72 BOMLR 94.
  68. ^ Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy 2006 (87) DRJ 603.
  69. ^ Santosh Tewari and Ors V State of U.P. and Anr 1996 (20) ACR 808.
  70. ^ Defamation Act, 1952 (England).
  71. ^ Ayesha (6 October 2010), , archived from the original on 1 October 2011.
  72. ^ . Archived from the original on 23 February 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  73. ^ "The Trial of John Peter Zenger". National Park Service. 26 February 2015. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  74. ^ "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  75. ^ "Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)". Google Scholar.
  76. ^ "Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)". Google Scholar.
  77. ^ "Court Cases". Defamation and the Internet. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  78. ^ . Media Law Resource Center. Archived from the original on 9 September 2021. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  79. ^ Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company [1997] HCA 25, (1997) 189 CLR 520, High Court (Australia).
  80. ^ Dixon, Nicolee (2005). "Research Brief No 2005/14: Uniform Defamation Laws" (PDF). Queensland Parliament. Queensland Parliamentary Library. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
  81. ^ (PDF). legislation.nsw.gov.au. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 June 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  82. ^ a b Pearson, Mark (1 July 2007). "A review of Australia's defamation reforms after a year of operation". Australian Journalism Review. 29 (1). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1030.7304.
  83. ^ Jack Herman; David Flint. . Presscouncil.org.au. Archived from the original on 12 November 2010. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  84. ^ Australian Law Reform Commission, 1979. . Efa.org.au. Archived from the original on 16 April 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  85. ^ a b Duffy v Google Inc [2015] SASC 170 at 158 (27 October 2015), Supreme Court (SA, Australia).
  86. ^ Defamation Act 1992 New Zealand as at 1 March 2017
  87. ^ Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
  88. ^ Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640 (22 December 2009), Supreme Court (Canada)
  89. ^ Astley v. Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651 (14 June 2011), Superior Court of Justice (Ontario, Canada)
  90. ^ Farallon Mining Ltd. v. Arnold, 2011 BCSC 1532 (10 November 2011), Supreme Court (British Columbia, Canada)
  91. ^ Elspeth C. Reid, Personality, Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law, (W. Green, 2010), at para.1.02
  92. ^ Elspeth C. Reid, Personality, Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law, (W. Green, 2010), at para.17.17
  93. ^ Elspeth C. Reid, Personality, Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law, (W. Green, 2010), at para.17.13
  94. ^ Robert Black, A Historical Survey of Delictual Liability in Scotland for Personal Injuries and Death (Continued), (1975) 8 CILS 189, at 195
  95. ^ David Ibbetson, 'Iniuria, Roman and English' in Eric Descheemaeker and Helen Scott, Iniuria and the Common Law, (Hart, 2013), at 40
  96. ^ Civil Code (Amended 2008.05.23)
  97. ^ . Archived from the original on 17 February 2012. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
  98. ^ a b c d e Congress, National People's. "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" – via Wikisource.
  99. ^ Civil Code of the Republic of China Article 195
  100. ^ a b Dominique Mondoloni (June 2014). "Legal Divisions". Index on Censorship. 43 (2): 84–87. doi:10.1177/0306422014537174. S2CID 147433423. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
  101. ^ Index on Censorship (19 August 2013). "France: Strict defamation and privacy laws limit free expression". Retrieved 25 May 2022.
  102. ^ Scott Griffen (25 September 2014). "In France, judicial evolution in defamation cases protects work of civil society". International Press Institute. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
  103. ^ MINPO [Civil Code] art. 723 (Japan)
  104. ^ a b Republic of the Philippines (11 November 1980). "The Revised Penal Code". Chan Robles law Firm. Retrieved 2 February 2012. Art. 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
  105. ^ "Legal dictionary". findlaw.com. Retrieved 24 November 2006.
  106. ^ . legal.org. Archived from the original on 22 April 2008. Retrieved 22 October 2004.
  107. ^ a b c . The Manila Times. 30 January 2012. Archived from the original on 9 May 2013.
  108. ^ "Civil and Commercial Code: Torts (Section 420-437) – Thailand Law Library". 12 February 2015.
  109. ^ a b "Thailand: UN experts condemn use of defamation laws to silence human rights defender Andy Hall". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 17 May 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  110. ^ Book 1, Title 2 of the Civil Code of Quebec
  111. ^ Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-îles inc., 1994 CanLII 5883, [1994] RJQ 1811 (1 August 1994), Court of Appeal (Quebec, Canada) (in French)
  112. ^ . Article19.org. Archived from the original on 3 November 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  113. ^ [dead link]ARTICLE 19 statements 18 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine on criminalised defamation
  114. ^ Idaho Code § 18-4801 2009-10-01 at the Wayback Machine, Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47 2011-07-04 at the Wayback Machine, Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510, and No Place in the Law: The Ignominy of Criminal Libel in American Jurisprudence by Gregory C. Lisby, 9 Comm. L. & Pol'y 433 footnote 386.
  115. ^ R v Orme and Nutt, 1700
  116. ^ King v. Osborne, 1732
  117. ^ Kallgren, Edward (1953). "Group Libel". California Law Review. 41 (2): 290–299. doi:10.2307/3478081. JSTOR 3478081.
  118. ^ a b c World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018. UNESCO. 2018. p. 202.
  119. ^ Dohel, Ilia. . Council of Europe. Archived from the original on 20 January 2013. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  120. ^ . Assembly of the Council of Europe. 4 October 2007. Archived from the original on 10 July 2010. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  121. ^ a b "Penal Code (India)". National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India).
  122. ^ a b "Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland)". Law Reform Commission of Ireland.
  123. ^ a b "Penal Code (Japan)". Japanese Law Translation Database System.
  124. ^ Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 1
  125. ^ Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 2
  126. ^ . Legislationline.org. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  127. ^ "European Council – Aperçu des legislations nationales en matière de diffamation et d'injure – English version – Section Albania". Coe.int. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  128. ^ (in Spanish) Argentine Penal Code (official text) – Crimes Against Honor (Articles 109 to 117-bis)
  129. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Austria". Coe.int. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  130. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Azerbaijan". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  131. ^ . Legislationline.org. Archived from the original on 13 August 2015. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  132. ^ OSCE report – Libel and Insult Laws 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine (see page 19)
  133. ^ (in French) Belgian Penal Code – Crimes against honour (see Articles 443 to 453-bis)
  134. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation – Section Belgium (French)". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  135. ^ (in Portuguese) Brazilian Penal Code (official text)
  136. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Bulgary". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  137. ^ "s. 298,". Criminal Code (Canada).
  138. ^ "s. 301,". Criminal Code (Canada).
  139. ^ "s. 300,". Criminal Code (Canada).
  140. ^ Mann, Arshy (29 September 2014). . Canadian Lawyer. Archived from the original on 7 March 2017. Retrieved 6 March 2017.
  141. ^ "Cyberbullying restaurant owner gets 90 days in jail". CBC. 16 November 2012. Retrieved 23 February 2021.
  142. ^ "Libel and Insult Laws: A Matrix on Where We Stand and What We Would Like to Achieve", OSCE, 9 March 2005 (at page 40)
  143. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Croatia". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  144. ^ (in Spanish) Chilean Penal Code, Book II (see Articles 412 to 431)
  145. ^ "IEstudiosPenales.com.ar – Penal Code of Chile" (PDF) (in Spanish). (578 KB) (see pages 75–78)
  146. ^ (in Spanish) Chilean Penal Code, Book I (see Articles 25 and 30)
  147. ^ (in Spanish) Biblioteca.jus.gov.ar – Penal Code of Chile (see articles 416–417 and 424–425)
  148. ^ Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China 20 September 2021(Date mismatch) at the Wayback Machine, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
  149. ^ a b c Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 509[permanent dead link] translated by Joe Y. C. Wu.
  150. ^ Huang Yu Zhe (26 January 2022). "Taiwan needs to decriminalise libel". Taipei Times. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  151. ^ "Czech Criminal Code – Law No. 40/2009 Coll., Article 184". Business.center.cz. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  152. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Denmark". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  153. ^ OSCE report on defamation laws (English) 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine (see page 51, item 6)
  154. ^ "The Criminal Code of Finland (English version)" (PDF). Retrieved 15 February 2012.
  155. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Finland". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  156. ^ "Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2008. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  157. ^ "OSCE Report on Defamation laws in Europe and North America" 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine (see page 68, items 6 and 7)
  158. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Greece". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  159. ^ Swamy, Subramanian (21 September 2004). . The Hindu. Archived from the original on 22 July 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  160. ^ "Constitution (India)". Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
  161. ^ Defamation – Indian Penal Code, 1860
  162. ^ "Criminal Procedure Code (India)". National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India).
  163. ^ Wood, Kieron. "Defamation Law in Ireland". www.lawyer.ie. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  164. ^ "Dei delitti contro la persona. Libro II, Titolo XII". AltaLex (in Italian). Retrieved 27 May 2020.
  165. ^ OSCE Report on Insult Laws in Europe and North America 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine (see page 79, item 8)
  166. ^ (in Italian) Italian Penal Code (see Article 31)
  167. ^ Buonomo, Giampiero (2001). . Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online (in Italian). Archived from the original on 11 December 2019. Retrieved 17 March 2016.
  168. ^ Judgment of June 25, 1969 (Kochi v. Japan), Saik6sai [Supreme Court], 23 Keishil 7, at 259 (Japan)
  169. ^ "Constitution (Japan)". Official Website of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet.
  170. ^ "Delitos de injuria, difamación y calumnia en los códigos penales de México" 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  171. ^ "European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Norway". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  172. ^ . Legislationline.org. Archived from the original on 24 February 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  173. ^ "European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Poland". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  174. ^ "OSCE Report on Defamation Laws in Europe and North America" 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine (see page 117, item 6)
  175. ^ (in Portuguese) Portuguese Penal Code 17 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine (articles 180 to 189)
  176. ^ "Portuguese Penal Code (official version)" (PDF) (in Portuguese). (641 KB) (full text)
  177. ^ Mona Scărișoreanu, România, printre puținele state europene care au dezincriminat insulta și calomnia 1 February 2021 at the Wayback Machine, în România Liberă, 31 martie 2014; accesat la 5 octombrie 2015.
  178. ^ "Saudi Arabia passes anti-terror law, banning defamation". Gulf News. Retrieved 30 March 2018.
  179. ^ Alsaafin, Linah (15 July 2015). "Saudi writer arrested for insulting long-dead king". Middle East Eye. Middle East Eye. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  180. ^ Back, Sang Hyun. . Korea Economic Institute of America. Archived from the original on 22 September 2019. Retrieved 22 September 2019.
  181. ^ a b Park, S. Nathan (15 December 2014). "Is South Korea's Criminal Defamation Law Hurting Democracy?". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 January 2021.
  182. ^ "Copyright, Defamation and Privacy in Soviet Civil Law" (Levitsky, Serge L.) (Law in Eastern Europe, No. 22 (I) – Issued by the Documentation Office for East European Law, from the University of Leyden, page 114)
  183. ^ (in Spanish) Penal Code of Spain (Articles 205 to 216)
  184. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Spain". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  185. ^ a b c d Swedish Penal Code (English version)[permanent dead link] (see Chapter 5)
  186. ^ a b c d Ström, E. "Om att utsättas för kränkningar på jobbet" 30 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine (in Swedish) Department of Work Science, University of Gothenburg
  187. ^ Frigyes, Paul "I väntan på juryn..." Journalisten 25 November 2008
  188. ^ "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Sweden". Council of Europe. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  189. ^ (in French) Swiss Penal Code – Calumny (Article 174)
  190. ^ (Swiss criminal code in English [1])
  191. ^ (in French) Swiss Penal Code – Defamation (Article 173)
  192. ^ (in French) Swiss Penal Code – Defamation and calumny against a deceased or absent person (Article 175)
  193. ^ "Criminal Code: Defamation (Sections 326–333) – Thailand Law Library". 19 March 2015.
  194. ^ "Coroners and Justice Act 2009", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2009 c. 25
  195. ^ Folkard, Henry Coleman (1908). The Law of Slander and Libel. London: Butterworth & Co. p. 480. public benefit.
  196. ^ "Criminal Defamation Laws in North America". Committee to Protect Journalists. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  197. ^ Alabama Revised Statutes, §§ 13A-11-160–13A-11-164
  198. ^ Florida Statutes, §§ 836.01–836.11
  199. ^ Idaho Code, §§ 18-4801–18-4809
  200. ^ Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 720 § 300 (related only to banking and trust businesses, not to individuals)
  201. ^ Kansas Statutes Annotated, § 21-6103(a)(1)
  202. ^ Kentucky Revised Statutes, § 432.280 (related only to acting judges and courts)
  203. ^ Louisiana Revised Statutes, § 14:47
  204. ^ Massachusetts Revised Statutes, Ch. 272 § 98C (related only to publishing materials, aiming at spreading hatred against groups of people of a race, skin colour, religion, thus, in practice, serving as a sort of hate crime law, but still, it is classified as a libel)
  205. ^ Michigan Compiled Laws, §§ 750.370–750.371
  206. ^ Minnesota Statutes. § 609.765
  207. ^ Mississippi Code Annotated, §97-3-55
  208. ^ Montana Code Annotated, § 45-8-212
  209. ^ Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 200.510–200.560
  210. ^ New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, § 644:11
  211. ^ New Mexico Statutes Annotated, § 30-11-1
  212. ^ North Carolina General Statutes, § 14–47
  213. ^ North Dakota Century Code, § 12.1-15-01
  214. ^ Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 §§ 771–781
  215. ^ South Carolina Code of Laws, § 16-7-150
  216. ^ Texas Finance Code, §§59.002; 89.101; 119.202; 122.251; 199.001 (respectively related only to banks, savings and loans associations, savings banks, credit unions, state trust companies)
  217. ^ Utah Code Annotated, § 76-9-404
  218. ^ Virginia Code Annotated, § 18.2-417
  219. ^ Wisconsin Statutes, § 942.01
  220. ^ Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, §§ 4101–4104
  221. ^ Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, §§ 1172–1182)
  222. ^ no statutorily defined crime, but article 1, § 7 of the Iowa Constitution states that truth shall be a defence in criminal-libel lawsuits. The case of Park v. Hill 380 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N. D. Iowa 2005) set the basic rules of Iowa about criminal defamation/libel, defining what it is, while the case of State v. Heacock 76 N. W. 654 (Iowa 1898) set the Iowan rules about public persecution for the crime
  223. ^ Noonan v. Staples, 556 F. 3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009), rehearing denied, 561 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2009); accessed 15 December 2014.
  224. ^ Noonan, n.15.
  225. ^ Anatoly Kurmanaev (12 March 2016). "Venezuelan Court Sentences Newspaper Publisher to Prison Four-year sentence raises concerns about press intimidation in the troubled South American country". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 16 March 2016. ... defamation of a businessman connected to government-owned iron miner Ferrominera Orinoco ...
  226. ^ Karem Tirmandi (12 May 2022). "Canada: Internet Defamation For Businesses And Professionals". Mondaq. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  227. ^ Kang Hyun-kyung (11 January 2009). "Parties Clash Over Freedom of Expression". Korea Times.
  228. ^ Lee Tee Jong (13 October 2008). "Seoul rushes Internet Bill". The Straits Times.
  229. ^ . m.hankookilbo.com. Archived from the original on 24 October 2018.
  230. ^ . Sun*Star – Davao. 21 September 2012. Archived from the original on 22 September 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
  231. ^ Harry Roque Jr. (20 September 2012). . Manila Standard. Archived from the original on 22 September 2012.
  232. ^ "Republic Act No. 10175". Official Gazette. Office of the President of the Philippines. 12 September 2012.
  233. ^ . The Daily Tribune. 30 September 2012. Archived from the original on 29 October 2012.
  234. ^ Whitbourn, Michaela (4 March 2014). "The tweet that cost $105,000". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  235. ^ a b Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652, Federal Court (Australia).
  236. ^ Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 SCR 269 (19 October 2011), Supreme Court (Canada)
  237. ^ "Cyber Libel Updates Archives". McConchie Law Corporation.
  238. ^ Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, (2002) 210 CLR 575, High Court (Australia).
  239. ^ Law Lords Department. . The Stationery Office. Archived from the original on 17 August 2000. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  240. ^ "Letter From the Editor – Barron's Online". Online.barrons.com. 25 October 2004. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  241. ^ Green, Dana. . Litigation News. American Bar Association. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  242. ^ Shapiro, Ari (21 March 2015). "On Libel and the Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways". National Public Radio. Parallels. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
  243. ^ "The Dirty Secrets of a Smear Campaign". New Yorker. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  244. ^ Delany, Joseph Francis (1912). "Slander" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  245. ^ Deharbe, Joseph (1912). "Chap. II. The Ten Commandments of God" . A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion. Translated by Rev. John Fander. Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss.
  246. ^ "Part 3: The Eighth Commandment" . The catechism of the Council of Trent. Translated by James Donovan. Lucas Brothers. 1829.
  247. ^ Massillon, Jean-Baptiste (1879). "Sermon VI: On evil-speaking" . Sermons by John-Baptist Massillon. Thomas Tegg & Sons.

Bibliography

  •   This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken from World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018​, 202, UNESCO. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see this how-to page. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.

External links

 
Look up defamation, slander, or libel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 
Wikisource has the text of a 1905 New International Encyclopedia article about "Libel".
  •   Quotations related to Defamation at Wikiquote
  • Defamation at Curlie

July 25, 2023
defamation, several, terms, redirect, here, other, uses, libel, disambiguation, slander, disambiguation, film, wikipedia, policy, wikipedia, libel, first, approximation, form, communication, that, injure, third, party, reputation, this, include, modes, human, . Several terms redirect here For other uses see Libel disambiguation Slander disambiguation and Defamation film For the Wikipedia policy see Wikipedia Libel Defamation at a first approximation is any form of communication that can injure a third party s reputation This can include all modes of human understandable communications gestures images signs words It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation like dignity and honour For a communication to be considered defamatory it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium defamation may be distinguished between libel written printed posted online published in mass media and slander spoken off the record It is treated as a civil wrong tort delict as a criminal offence or both The exact definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions for example whether they constitute crimes or not to what extent insults and opinions are included on top of allegations of facts to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence 1 2 3 4 additional citation s needed Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts from general defamation and insult as applicable to every citizen to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures 5 additional citation s needed Defamation against a legal person in general Insult against a legal person in general Acts against public officials Acts against state institutions government ministries government agencies armed forces Acts against state symbols Acts against the state itself Acts against heads of state Acts against religions blasphemy Acts against the judiciary or legislature contempt of court Contents 1 History 2 Defamation as a tort 2 1 Common law 2 1 1 Background 2 1 2 Overview 2 1 3 Defences 2 1 4 Defamation per se 2 1 5 Variations within common law jurisdictions 2 2 Roman Dutch and Scots law 2 3 Other legal systems 2 3 1 Taiwan 2 3 1 1 China 2 3 1 2 Republic of China 2 3 2 France 2 3 3 Japan 2 3 4 Philippines 2 3 5 Thailand 2 3 6 Quebec 3 Defamation as a crime 3 1 Criticism 3 2 By jurisdiction 3 2 1 Albania 3 2 2 Argentina 3 2 3 Austria 3 2 4 Azerbaijan 3 2 5 Belgium 3 2 6 Brazil 3 2 7 Bulgaria 3 2 8 Canada 3 2 9 Croatia 3 2 10 Chile 3 2 11 China 3 2 12 Czech Republic 3 2 13 Denmark 3 2 14 Finland 3 2 15 France 3 2 16 Germany 3 2 17 Greece 3 2 18 India 3 2 19 Ireland 3 2 20 Israel 3 2 21 Italy 3 2 22 Japan 3 2 23 Malaysia 3 2 24 Mexico 3 2 25 Netherlands 3 2 26 Norway 3 2 27 Poland 3 2 28 Portugal 3 2 29 Romania 3 2 30 Philippines 3 2 31 Saudi Arabia 3 2 32 South Korea 3 2 33 Former Soviet Union 3 2 34 Spain 3 2 35 Sweden 3 2 36 Switzerland 3 2 37 Thailand 3 2 38 United Kingdom 3 2 39 United States 3 2 40 Venezuela 4 Online defamation 5 Religious views 5 1 Catholic 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 External linksHistory EditDefamation law has a long history stretching back to classical antiquity While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man s character while it protected him from needless insult and pain The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty which was estimated according to the significance of the case and which although punitive in its character doubtless included practically the element of compensation But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings the libri or libelli famosi from which is derived the modern use of the word libel and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous and visited with very severe punishment whether the matters contained in them were true or false The Praetorian Edict codified circa AD 130 declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals qui adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret in eum iudicium dabo 6 In this case the offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting According to Ulpian not all shouting was actionable Drawing on the argument of Labeo he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city adversus bonos mores huius civitatis something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt quae ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret the person exposed thereto 7 Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum 8 In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made but even in public matters the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true 9 The second head included defamatory statements made in private and in this case the offense lay in the content of the imputation not in the manner of its publication The truth was therefore a sufficient defense for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation In Anglo Saxon England whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions slander was punished by cutting out the tongue 10 Historically while defamation of a commoner in England was known as libel or slander the defamation of a member of the English aristocracy was called scandalum magnatum literally the scandal of magnates 11 Defamation has historically featured prominently in religious ethics and jurisprudence particularly in Abrahamic faiths In Judaism lashon hara is a variety of defamation actionable under halakhic law 12 Lashon hara differs from other conceptions of defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose rather than falsehood and harm arising By contrast hotzaat shem ra spreading a bad name also called hotzaat diba consists of untrue remarks and is best translated as slander or defamation Hotzaat shem ra is worse on account of its inherent dishonesty and is consequently considered a graver sin than lashon hara 12 In Roman Catholic theology defamation is seen through the lens of two distinct sins that of lying and that of impinging on a person s right to a reputation 13 It is considered to be close to detraction the sin of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person 14 While particularly in the case of halakhic courts and dispute resolution Jewish and Christian theological approaches to defamation are influential in shaping attitudes and public policy toward defamation their practical influence over defamation in tort and criminal law is limited in contemporary secular legal systems Under Islamic law there are various defamation related offences and sins rooted in the historical development of Islamic jurisprudence While contemporary Islamic or Muslim majority jurisdictions are typically primarily common or civil law jurisdictions Islamic jurisprudence exercises a significant influence over jurisdictions in the Islamic world seeking to harmonise their legal systems with Islamic worldviews 15 The Islamic concept of tashir i e the principle that conduct aimed at discrediting an individual s dignity or honour in the eyes of the community is inherently wrongful informs jurists approach to defamation in the Islamic world 16 Furthermore with regard to the tension between the protection of community members honour which is viewed as a public good or God s right and freedom of speech which is viewed as an individual man s right Islamic jurisprudence places greater emphasis on the former than on the latter 15 Following the Second World War and with the rise of contemporary international human rights law the right to a legal remedy for defamation is rooted in Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR which states that No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy family home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks This implies a right to legal protection against defamation however this right co exists with the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 17 Article 19 of the ICCPR expressly provides that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be limited so far as it is necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others 17 Consequently international human rights law provides that while individual s should have the right to a legal remedy for defamation this right must be balanced with the equally protected right to freedom of opinion and expression In general ensuring that domestic defamation law adequately balances individuals right to protect their reputation with freedom of expression and of the press entails 18 Providing for truth i e demonstrating that the content of the defamatory statement is true to be a valid defence Recognising reasonable publication on matters of public concern as a valid defence and Ensuring that defamation may only be addressed by the legal system as a tort In most of Europe article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others 19 Additionally restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws including the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR and by the constitutions of a variety of countries are subject to some variation of the three part test recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee which requires that limitations be 1 provided by law that is clear and accessible to everyone 2 proven to be necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputations of others and 3 proportionate and the least restrictive to achieve the purported aim 20 This test is analogous to the Oakes Test applied domestically by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the necessary in a democratic society test applied by the European Court of Human Rights in assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR Section 36 of the post Apartheid Constitution of South Africa 21 and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya 22 Defamation as a tort EditFurther information tort While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently it is typically regarded as a tort a for which the offended party can take civil action The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range from damages to court orders requiring the defendant to retract the offending statement or to publish a correction or an apology Common law Edit Background Edit Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from English defamation law English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals under English law companies are legal persons and allowed to bring suit for defamation 24 25 26 in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them Overview Edit In contemporary common law jurisdictions to constitute defamation a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed 27 Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation called slander and defamation in other media such as printed words or images called libel 28 The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published If the offending material is published in some fleeting form such as spoken words or sounds sign language gestures or the like then it is slander In contrast libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words pictures or in any form other than spoken words or gestures 29 b The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel 30 The highest award in an American defamation case at US 222 7 million was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favour of MMAR Group Inc 31 however the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees 32 In common law jurisdictions civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore s ruling People s Action Party to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as J B Jeyaretnam 33 34 35 36 37 Over the first few decades of the twenty first century the phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists journalists and critics of corporations political leaders and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation 38 As a result tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions the California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario s Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which if successful would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff 39 40 Defences Edit There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions 41 The two most fundamental defences arise from the doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact as opposed to opinion can be defamatory This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences opinion and truth Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non falsifiable c Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion the most common defence in common law jurisdictions is that of truth Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence 43 Where a statement is partially true certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges 44 Similarly the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has slight inaccuracies of expression but is otherwise true 45 Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person s reputation another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that regardless of whether the statement is true or is a statement of fact it does not actually harm someone s reputation Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include 46 47 Privilege A circumstance that justifies or excuses an act that would otherwise constitute a tort on the ground that it stemmed from a recognised interest of social importance provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted While some privileges have long been recognised courts may create a new privilege for particular circumstances privilege as an affirmative defence is a potentially ever evolving doctrine Such newly created or circumstantially recognised privileges are referred to as residual justification privileges There are two types of privilege in common law jurisdictions Absolute privilege has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory even if it were made maliciously a typical example is evidence given in court although this may give rise to different claims such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury or statements made in a session of the legislature by a member thereof known as Parliamentary privilege in Commonwealth countries Qualified privilege A more limited or qualified form of privilege may be available to journalists as a defence in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest an example would be public meetings local government documents and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments Another example would be that a professor acting in good faith and honesty may write an unsatisfactory letter of reference with unsatisfactory information Mistake of fact Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements however the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources Mere vulgar abuse An insult that is not necessarily defamatory if it is not intended to be taken literally or believed or likely to cause real damage to a reputation Vituperative statements made in anger such as calling someone an arse during a drunken argument would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory Fair comment Statements made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest such as regarding official acts are defendable against a defamation claim even if such arguments are logically unsound if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion the statement is protected Consent In rare cases a defendant can argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement Innocent dissemination A defendant is not liable if they had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory Thus a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter The defence can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence Incapability of further defamation Historically it was a defence at common law that the claimant s position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff Such a claimant could be said to be libel proof since in most jurisdictions actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim Essentially the defence was that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement 48 Statute of limitations Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication 49 No third party communication If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound proof isolated room and accuse him of embezzling company money the employee would have no defamation recourse since no one other than the would be plaintiff and would be defendant heard the false statement No actual injury If there is third party communication but the third party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement or does not care then there is no injury and therefore no recourse Triviality The trivial nature of a statement can be a defence in certain common law jurisdictions whereby a statement is not defamatory if it is so trivial in nature as to be incapable of materially injuring the plaintiff s reputation 50 Defamation per se Edit Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory 51 In an action for defamation per se the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff s reputation allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages Although laws vary by state and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation per se there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a per se action 52 accusing someone of a crime alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease adversely reflecting on a person s fitness to conduct their business or trade and imputing serious sexual misconduct If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party No proof of special damages is required However to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages 52 As with any defamation case truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se This means that even if the statement would be considered defamatory per se if false if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true an action for defamation per se cannot survive 53 The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy For example in May 2012 an appeals court in New York citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation 54 Variations within common law jurisdictions Edit While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law statutes and other legislative action and constitutional concerns d specific to individual jurisdictions Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of injury intentional infliction of emotional distress involving the making of a statement even if truthful intended to harm the claimant out of malice some have a separate tort or delict of invasion of privacy in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability but neither of these comes under the general heading of defamation The tort of harassment created by Singapore s Protection from Harassment Act 2014 is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute 44 There is also in almost all jurisdictions a tort or delict of misrepresentation involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U S law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment see generally trademark dilution intentional interference with contract and negligent misrepresentation In America for example the unique tort of false light protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading 55 Libel and slander both require publication 56 Although laws vary by state in America a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff shared the statement with a third party that is somebody other than the person defamed by the statement if the defamatory matter is of public concern acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant and caused damages to the plaintiff Additionally American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures which can be used as a defence While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice i e the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth 57 58 A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 U S 254 1964 established that for a public official or other legitimate public figure to win a libel case in an American court the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth i e actual malice 59 The Associated Press estimates that 95 of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high profile news stories but run of the mill local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials or business profiles 60 Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits An early example of libel is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735 Zenger was hired to publish the New York Weekly Journal When he printed another man s article criticising William Cosby the royal governor of Colonial New York Zenger was accused of seditious libel 30 The verdict was returned as not guilty on the charge of seditious libel because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true so there was not an issue of defamation Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Co v Sullivan 1964 The American Supreme Court overruled a state court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists Even though some of what The Times printed was false the court ruled in its favour saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice which was defined as a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth 61 Many jurisdictions within the Commonwealth e g Singapore 62 Ontario 63 and the United Kingdom 64 have enacted legislation to Codify the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege Provide that while most instances of slander continue to require special damage to be proved i e prove that pecuniary loss was caused by the defamatory statement instances such as slander of title shall not Clarify that broadcast statements including those that are only broadcast in spoken form constitute libel rather than slander Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the Defamation Act 2013 Defamation in Indian tort law largely resembles that of England and Wales Indian courts have endorsed 65 the defences of absolute 66 and qualified privilege 67 fair comment 68 and justification 69 While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation 70 there is no corresponding provision in India though it is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent 71 Recently incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention 72 The origins of U S defamation law pre date the American Revolution e Though the First Amendment of the American Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by the state rather than defamation suits thus for most of American history the Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants This left libel laws based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system mixed across the states The 1964 case New York Times Co v Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice that is public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher s knowledge that the information was false or that the information was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not 74 Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims 75 as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation 76 Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet 77 American defamation law is much less plaintiff friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law 78 Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together merging the concepts into a single defamation law 52 Australian law of defamation developed out of the English law of defamation and its cases however as in America there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1997 79 In 2006 uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia 80 In addition to fixing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories the laws made a number of reforms including Abolishing the distinction between libel and slander 81 82 Providing new defences including that of triviality where it is a defence to the publication of a defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm 50 82 Providing that defences against defamation may be negated if there is proof the publication was actuated by malice 50 Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation see e g Defamation Act 2005 Vic s 9 Corporations may however still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood where the burden of proof is greater than in defamation because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss 83 The 2006 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defence previously a number of states only allowed a defence of truth with the condition that a public interest or benefit existed The defendant however still needs to prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true 84 The law as it currently stands in Australia was summarised in the 2015 case of Duffy v Google by Justice Blue in the Supreme Court of South Australia 85 f Similarly New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840 The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954 86 New Zealand law allows for the following remedies in an action for defamation compensatory damages an injunction to stop further publication a correction or a retraction and in certain cases punitive damages Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory there is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred However Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions Canada follows English law on defamation issues except in Quebec where the private law is derived from French civil law In common law provinces and territories defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public 87 Probably true statements are not excluded nor are political opinions Intent is always presumed and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame In Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co v Sullivan Once a claim has been made the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification the truth fair comment responsible communication 88 or privilege Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement it was not brought to their attention and they were not negligent 89 90 Roman Dutch and Scots law Edit Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law i e most of Southern Africa g Indonesia Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean gives rise to a claim by way of actio iniuriarum For liability under the actio iniuriarum the general elements of delict must be present but specific rules have been developed for each element Causation for example is seldom in issue and is assumed to be present The elements of liability under the actio iniuriarum are as follows harm in the form of a violation of a personality interest one s corpus dignitas and fama wrongful conduct h and intention Under the actio iniuriarum harm consists in the infringement of a personality right either corpus dignitas or fama Dignitas is a generic term meaning worthiness dignity self respect and comprises related concerns like mental tranquillity and privacy Because it is such a wide concept its infringement must be serious Not every insult is humiliating one must prove contumelia This includes insult iniuria in the narrow sense adultery loss of consortium alienation of affection breach of promise but only in a humiliating or degrading manner et cetera Fama is a generic term referring to reputation and actio iniuriarum pertaining to it encompasses defamation more broadly Beyond simply covering actions that fall within the broader concept of defamation actio iniuriarum relating to infringements of a person s corpus provides civil remedies for assaults acts of a sexual or indecent nature and wrongful arrest and detention In Scots law which is closely related to Roman Dutch law the remedy for defamation is similarly the actio iniuriarium and the most common defence is veritas i e proving the truth of otherwise defamatory statement Defamation falls within the realm of non patrimonial i e dignitary interests The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non patrimonial interests is said to be a thing of shreds and patches 91 This notwithstanding there is little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law in the development of mechanisms to protect so called rights of personality 92 The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise and afford reparation in cases in which no patrimonial or quasi patrimonial loss has occurred but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through the wrongful conduct of the defender For such reparation to be offered however the non patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted negligent interference with a non patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability 93 An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be contumelious 94 that is it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer s recognised personality interest that an intention to affront animus iniuriandi might be imputed 95 Other legal systems Edit Taiwan Edit There are four distinct systems of tort and therefore civil defamation law presently in force in Taiwan three of which are in force in different regions administered by the People s Republic of China and one of which is in force in the Republic of China Areas administered by the Republic of China include Taiwan Chinese 台灣 Penghu Chinese 澎湖 Kinmen Chinese 金門 pinyin Jinmen Matsu Islands Chinese 馬祖列島 pinyin Mǎzǔ Lieong Kong is a common law jurisdiction whose defamation law is largely identical to that of England and Wales Macau operates under a distinct framework modelled after Portuguese civil law and most aspects of civil law in the Mainland are governed by the 2021 Civil Code of the People s Republic of China In contrast all areas of the Republic of China are governed by the Civil Code of the Republic of China 96 which was originally modelled after the Japanese Six Codes system itself primarily based on the German pandectist approach to law 97 China Edit While tort law in China is generally governed by Book Seven Tort Liability of the Civil Code of the People s Republic of China CCPRC liability for defamation is provided for in Book Four Personality Rights 98 Article 1024 provides that no organisation or individual may infringe upon other s right to reputation by insultation defamation or the like defining reputation as a social evaluation of the moral character prestige talent and credit of a person 98 In addition to damages remedies for defamation may include the right to request a correction or the timely deletion of defamatory content 98 Qualified privilege for journalists and individuals acting for public interest purposes and such individuals shall not bear civil liability for defamation except where one of the following situations exists 98 1 he has fabricated or distorted the facts 2 he has failed to fulfill the obligation to reasonably verify i the seriously misrepresentative information provided by others or 3 he has used insulting words and the like to degrade the other s reputation Article 1027 provides that while literary or artistic work depicts actual people with insulting or defamatory content that infringes upon another persons right to reputation is considered defamation under the CCPRC works which do not depict a specific person but some patterns of the story are similar to the situation of such person shall not constitute defamation 98 Republic of China Edit Liability for defamation under the Civil Code of the Republic of China stems from article 195 which provides for tort liability in the case of certain non pecuniary injuries particularly reputation privacy and personality 99 France Edit While defamation law in most jurisdictions centres on the protection of individuals dignity or reputation defamation law in France is particularly rooted in protecting the privacy of individuals 100 While the broader scope of the rights protected make defamation cases easier to prove in France than for example in England awards in defamation cases are significantly lower and it is common for courts to award symbolic damages as low as 1 100 Controversially damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens which has a chilling effect on criticism of public policy 101 While the only statutory defence available under French defamation law is to demonstrate the truth of the defamatory statement in question a defence that is unavailable in cases involving an individual s personal life French courts have recognised three additional exceptions 102 References to matters over ten years old References to a person s pardoned or expunged criminal record A plea of good faith which may be made if the statement pursues a legitimate aim is not driven by animosity or malice is prudent and measured in presentation is backed by a serious investigation that dutifully sought to ascertain the truth of the statement Japan Edit Under article 723 of the Japanese Civil Code a court is empowered to order a tortfeasor in a defamation case to take suitable measures for the restoration of the plaintiff s reputation either in lieu of or together with compensation for damages 103 An example of a civil defamation case in Japan can be found at Japan civil court finds against ZNTIR President Yositoki Mitsuo Hataya and Yoshiaki Philippines Edit In some systems notably the Philippines truth alone is not a defence 104 It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known and this may be the case even for public figures Public interest is generally not what the public is interested in but rather what is in the interest of the public 105 106 In a 2012 ruling involving Philippine libel law the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented Penal defamation laws should include defence of truth 107 Thailand Edit The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand provides that A person who contrary to the truth asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom even if he does not know of its untruth provided he ought to know it A person who makes a communication the untruth of which is unknown to him does not thereby render himself liable to make compensation if he or the receiver of the communication has a rightful interest in it The Court when given judgment as to the liability for wrongful act and the amount of compensation shall not be bound by the provisions of the criminal law concerning liability to punishment or by the conviction or non conviction of the wrongdoer for a criminal offence 108 In practice defamation law in Thailand has been found by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to be facilitate hostile and vexatious litigation by business interests seeking to suppress criticism 109 Quebec Edit In Quebec defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France and is presently established by Chapter III Title 2 of Book One of the Civil Code of Quebec which provides that every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy 110 To establish civil liability for defamation the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities the existence of an injury fault a wrongful act damage and of a causal connection link of causality between the two A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard as opposed to strict liability a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true 111 Defamation as a crime EditSee also Defamatory libel In addition to tort law many jurisdictions treat defamation as a criminal offence and provide for penalties as such Article 19 a British free expression advocacy group has published global maps 112 charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state 113 There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm For example in the United States criminal defamation is generally limited to the living However there are 7 states Idaho Kansas Louisiana Nevada North Dakota Oklahoma Utah that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead 114 The Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe OSCE has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries including all European countries all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States America and Canada 4 In a 2012 ruling on a complaint filed by a broadcaster who had been imprisoned for violating Philippine libel law the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held that the criminalisation of libel without provision of a public figure doctrine as in Philippine criminal law violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 107 Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of R v Orme and Nutt 1700 In this case the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were A report of the case told that the jury believed that where a writing inveighs against mankind in general or against a particular order of men as for instance men of the gown this is no libel but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel 115 This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case Since the jury was unable to identify the exact people who were being defamed there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v Osborne 1732 In this case the defendant was on trial for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had a child with a Christian man and that this act was common Following Osborne s anti Semitic publication several Jews were attacked Initially the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne s writings However the court concluded that since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did the whole community of Jews was defamed 116 Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of the crime this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence 117 For this reason group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts As of 2017 at least 130 UNESCO member states retained criminal defamation laws 118 In 2017 the Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe OSCE Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media issued a report on criminal defamation and anti blasphemy laws among its member states which found that defamation is criminalised in nearly three quarters 42 of the 57 OSCE participating states Many of the laws pertaining to defamation include specific provisions for harsher punishment for speech or publications critical of heads of state public officials state bodies and the state itself The OSCE report also noted that blasphemy and religious insult laws exist in around one third of OSCE participating states many of these combine blasphemy and religious insult with elements of hate speech legislation 3 In Africa at least four member states decriminalised defamation between 2012 and 2017 The ruling by the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights in Lohe Issa Konate v The Republic of Burkina Faso set a precedent in the region against imprisonment as a legitimate penalty for defamation framing it as a violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights ACHPR the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR and the treaty of the Economic Community of West African States ECOWAS Countries in every region have moved to further extend criminal defamation law to online content Cybercrime and anti terrorism laws passed throughout the world have led to bloggers appearing before courts with some serving time in prison 118 In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals sedition false statements in connection with elections and the use of profanity in public are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions The boundaries of a court s power to hold individuals in contempt of court for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries Criticism Edit While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation criminal defamation is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict freedom of expression Human rights organisations and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation 119 120 The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 opposes criminal defamation arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law 18 The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights One notable case was Lingens v Austria 1986 The United Nations OSCE Organization of American States OAS and African Union Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression stated in a joint declaration in March 2017 that general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas including false news or non objective information are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression and should be abolished 118 By jurisdiction Edit This section needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information April 2020 Criminal defamation laws by country 5 Country Criminal offences Custodial sentences Albania Yes No Andorra Yes Yes Armenia Unclear Unclear Austria Yes Yes Azerbaijan Yes Yes Belarus Yes Yes Belgium Yes Yes Bosnia and Herzegovina No No Bulgaria Yes No Canada Yes Yes Croatia Yes Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Czech Republic Yes Yes Denmark Yes Yes Estonia Yes Yes Finland Yes Yes France Yes No Georgia Unclear Unclear Germany Yes Yes Greece Yes Yes Hungary Yes Yes Iceland Yes Yes India 121 Yes Yes Ireland 122 No No Italy Yes Yes Japan 123 Yes Yes Kazakhstan Yes Yes Kyrgyzstan No No Latvia Yes Yes Liechtenstein Yes Yes Lithuania Yes Yes Luxembourg Yes Yes Malta Yes Yes Moldova No No Monaco Yes Yes Mongolia Yes No Montenegro Yes Yes Netherlands Yes Yes North Macedonia Yes No Norway Yes Yes Poland Yes Yes Portugal Yes Yes Romania No No Russia Yes Yes San Marino Yes Yes Serbia Yes Yes Slovakia Yes Yes Slovenia Yes Yes Spain Yes Yes Sweden Yes Yes Switzerland Yes Yes Tajikistan Yes Yes Turkey Yes Yes Turkmenistan Yes Yes Ukraine No No United Kingdom Yes No United States Unclear No Uzbekistan Yes Yes Vatican City Yes YesAlbania Edit According to the Criminal Code of Albania defamation is a crime Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from 40000 ALL c 350 to one million ALL c 8350 124 If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people the fine is 40 000 ALL to three million ALL c 25100 125 In addition defamation of authorities public officials or foreign representatives Articles 227 239 to 241 are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment 126 127 Argentina Edit In Argentina the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter Crimes Against Honor Articles 109 to 117 bis of the Penal Code Calumny is defined as the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit Article 109 However expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny Penalty is a fine from 3 000 to 30 000 pesos He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1 500 to 20 000 pesos Article 110 He who publishes or reproduces by any means calumnies and injuries made by others will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive see Article 113 When calumny or injury are committed through the press a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty Article 114 He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false is punished with six months to 3 years in prison When there is harm to somebody penalties are aggravated by an extra half Article 117 bis 2nd and 3rd 128 Austria Edit In Austria the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code Related criminal offences include slander and assault Article 115 that happens if a person insults mocks mistreats or threatens will ill treatment another one in public and yet malicious falsehood Article 297 defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution 129 Azerbaijan Edit In Azerbaijan the crime of defamation Article 147 may result in a fine up to 500 times the amount of minimum salaries public work for up to 240 hours correctional work for up to one year or imprisonment of up to six months Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime of grave or very grave nature Article 147 2 The crime of insult Article 148 can lead to a fine of up to 1 000 times the minimum wage or to the same penalties of defamation for public work correctional work or imprisonment 130 131 According to the OSCE report on defamation laws Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code 132 Belgium Edit In Belgium crimes against honor are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code Articles 443 to 453 bis Someone is guilty of calumny when law admits proof of the alleged fact and of defamation when law does not admit this evidence Article 443 The penalty is eight days to one year of imprisonment plus a fine Article 444 In addition the crime of calumnious denunciation Article 445 is punished with 15 days to six months in prison plus a fine In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code the minimum penalty may be doubled Article 453 bis when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race colour of the skin ancestry national origin or ethnicity nationality gender sexual orientation marital status place of birth age patrimony philosophical or religious belief present or future health condition disability native language political belief physical or genetical characteristic or social origin 133 134 Brazil Edit In Brazil defamation is a crime which is prosecuted either as defamation three months to a year in prison plus fine Article 139 of the Penal Code calumny six months to two years in prison plus fine Article 138 of the PC or injury one to six months in prison or fine Article 140 with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public Article 141 item III or against a state employee because of his regular duties Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code incitation to a crime Article 286 Moreover in situations like bullying or moral constraint defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of illegal constraint Article 146 of the Penal Code and arbitrary exercise of discretion Article 345 of PC defined as breaking the law as a vigilante 135 Bulgaria Edit In Bulgaria defamation is formally a criminal offence but the penalty of imprisonment was abolished in 1999 Articles 146 insult 147 criminal defamation and 148 public insult of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine 136 Canada Edit In Canada the Criminal Code specifies the following as criminal offences Defamatory libel defined as matter published without lawful justification or excuse that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred contempt or ridicule or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published 137 receives the same penalty 138 A libel known to be false is an indictable offence for which the prison term is a maximum of five years 139 The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied but it has been observed that when treated as an indictable offence it often appears to arise from statements made against an agent of the Crown such as a police officer a corrections officer or a Crown attorney 140 In the most recent case in 2012 an Ottawa restaurant owner was convicted of ongoing online harassment of a customer who had complained about the quality of food and service in her restaurant 141 According to an Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe official report on defamation laws issued in 2005 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation libel and insult among which 23 were convicted 9 to prison sentences 19 to probation and one to a fine The average period in prison was 270 days and the maximum sentence was 4 years of imprisonment 142 Croatia Edit In Croatia the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison or a fine of up to 100 daily incomes Criminal Code Article 199 If the crime is committed in public penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes Article 199 2 Moreover the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation The maximum penalty is one year in prison or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes Article 200 1 If the crime is committed in public the prison term can reach one year Article 200 2 On the other hand according to Article 203 there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles insult and defamation when the specific context is that of a scientific work literary work work of art public information conducted by a politician or a government official journalistic work or the defence of a right or the protection of justifiable interests in all cases provided that the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone s reputation 143 Chile Edit In Chile the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation injurias are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code Calumny is defined as the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution Article 412 If the calumny is written and with publicity penalty is lower imprisonment in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 vital wages when it refers to a crime or lower imprisonment in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to ten vital wages when it refers to a misdemeanor Article 413 If it is not written or with publicity penalty is lower imprisonment in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to fifteen vital wages when it is about a crime or plus a fine of six to ten vital wages when it is about a misdemeanor Article 414 144 145 According to Article 25 of the Penal Code lower imprisonment is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years According to Article 30 the penalty of lower imprisonment in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term 146 Article 416 defines injuria as all expression said or action performed that dishonors discredits or causes contempt Article 417 defines broadly injurias graves grave slander including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality which are capable of harming considerably the reputation credit or interests of the offended person Grave slander in written form or with publicity are punished with lower imprisonment in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of eleven to twenty vital wages Calumny or slander of a deceased person Article 424 can be prosecuted by the spouse children grandchildren parents grandparents siblings and heirs of the offended person Finally according to Article 425 in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander 147 China Edit In the Chinese mainland Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People s Republic of China 中华人民共和国刑法 makes serious defamation punishable by fixed term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention upon complaint unless it is against the government 148 In areas administered by the Republic of China Article 310 of the Criminal Code 中華民國刑法 criminalises defamation held constitutional on 7 July 2000 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court Judicial Yuan 司法院大法官 149 The court s reasoning in upholding the law was that while Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of China protects freedom of speech the right is subject to suitable restraints where this is necessary to protect other fundamental rights such as personal reputation and privacy 149 While Article 310 provides that an individual accused of criminal defamation is to be acquitted if they are able to prove the truth of the defamatory statement in question the court interpreted this to mean that even if the accused fails to demonstrate that the statement was true they may not be convicted if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true when it was made and that the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution 149 The continued criminalisation of defamation in the Republic of China is controversial with an editorial in the Taipei Times published in January 2022 arguing that prosecutors being a common asset of society ought to put all their efforts into major crimes rather than private disputes and that criminal defamation inappropriately transforms the nations courts into courts of folk morality 150 Czech Republic Edit According to the Czech Criminal Code Article 184 defamation is a crime Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year Article 184 1 or if the crime is committed through the press film radio TV publicly accessible computer network or by similarly effective methods the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity 151 However only the most severe cases will be subject to criminal prosecution The less severe cases can be solved by an action for apology damages or injunctions Denmark Edit In Denmark libel is a crime as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine with proceedings initiated by the victim In addition Article 266 b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race colour national or ethnic origin religion or sexual inclination 152 153 Finland Edit In Finland defamation is a crime according to the Criminal Code Chapter 24 Sections 9 and 10 punishable with a fine or if aggravated with up to two years imprisonment or a fine Defamation is defined as spreading a false report or insinuation apt to cause harm to a person or otherwise disparaging someone Defamation of the deceased may also constitute an offence if apt to cause harm to surviving loved ones In addition there is a crime called dissemination of information violating personal privacy Chapter 24 Section 8 which consists in disseminating information even accurate in a way that is apt to harm someone s right to privacy Information that may be relevant with regard to a person s conduct in public office in business or in a comparable position or of information otherwise relevant to a matter of public interest is not covered by this prohibition 154 155 Finnish criminal law has no provisions penalizing the defamation of corporate entities only of natural persons France Edit Front page of La Vie Illustree on 25 July 1902 Mme Camille du Gast stands in court during the cases of character defamation by the barrister Maitre Barboux and the Prince of Sagan s assault on Barboux In France defamation is a criminal offence defined as the allegation or the allocation of a fact that damages the honor or reputation of the person or body to which the fact is imputed A defamatory allegation is considered an insult if it does not include any facts or if the claimed facts cannot be verified Germany Edit In German law there is no distinction between libel and slander As of 2006 update German defamation lawsuits are increasing 156 The relevant offences of Germany s Criminal Code are 90 denigration of the Federal President 90a denigration of the federal State and its symbols 90b unconstitutional denigration of the organs of the Constitution 185 insult 186 defamation of character 187 defamation with deliberate untruths 188 political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187 189 denigration of a deceased person 192 insult with true statements Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are 190 criminal conviction as proof of truth 193 no defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests 194 application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs 199 mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished and 200 method of proclamation Greece Edit In Greece the maximum prison term for defamation libel or insult was five years while the maximum fine was 15 000 157 The crime of insult Article 361 1 of the Penal Code may have led to up to one year of imprisonment or a fine while unprovoked insult Article 361 A 1 was punished with at least three months in prison In addition defamation may have resulted in up to two months in prison or a fine while aggravated defamation could have led to at least three months of prison plus a possible fine Article 363 and deprivation of the offender s civil rights Finally disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to six months Penal Code Article 365 158 India Edit In India a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law or cyber crime law together or in sequence 159 According to the Constitution of India 160 the fundamental right to free speech Article 19 is subject to reasonable restrictions 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc 1 All citizens shall have the right a to freedom of speech and expression 2 Nothing in sub clause a of clause 1 shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State friendly relations with foreign States public order decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court defamation or incitement to an offence Accordingly for the purpose of criminal defamation reasonable restrictions are defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 121 161 This section defines defamation and provides ten valid exceptions when a statement is not considered to be defamation It says that defamation takes place when someone by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person The punishment is simple imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both Section 500 Some other offences related to false allegations false statements regarding elections Section 171G false information Section 182 false claims in court Section 209 false criminal charges Section 211 Some other offences related to insults against public servants in judicial proceedings Section 228 against religion or religious beliefs Section 295A against religious feelings Section 298 against breach of peace Section 504 against modesty of women Section 509 According to the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 162 defamation is prosecuted only upon a complaint within six months from the act Section 199 and is a bailable non cognisable and compoundable offence See The First Schedule Classification of Offences Ireland Edit See also Blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland Censorship in the Republic of Ireland and Statute of Limitations in Ireland According to the revised Defamation Act 2009 122 the last criminal offences Sections 36 37 blasphemy seem to have been repealed The statute of limitations is one year from the time of first publication may be extended to two years by the courts Section 38 The 2009 Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961 which had together with the underlying principles of the common law of tort governed Irish defamation law for almost half a century The 2009 Act represents significant changes in Irish law as many believe that it previously attached insufficient importance to the media s freedom of expression and weighed too heavily in support of the individual s right to a good name 163 Israel Edit According to Defamation Prohibition Law full citation needed 1965 defamation can constitute either civil or criminal offence As a civil offence defamation is considered a tort case and the court may award a compensation of up to NIS 50 000 to the person targeted by the defamation while the plaintiff does not have to prove a material damage As a criminal offence defamation is punishable by a year of imprisonment In order to constitute a felony defamation must be intentional and target at least two persons Italy Edit In Italy there used to be different crimes against honor The crime of injury Article 594 of the penal code referred to the act of offending someone s honor in their presence and was punishable with up to six months in prison or a fine of up to 516 The crime of defamation Article 595 Penal Code refers to any other situation involving offending one s reputation before many persons and is punishable with a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1 032 in fine doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2 065 if the offence consists in the attribution of a determined fact When the offence happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity or in a public demonstration the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years or a fine of at least 516 Both of them were a querela di parte crimes that is the victim had the right of choosing in any moment to stop the criminal prosecution by withdrawing the querela a formal complaint or even prosecute the fact only with a civil action with no querela and therefore no criminal prosecution at all However beginning from 15 January 2016 injury is no longer a crime but a tort while defamation is still considered a crime like before 164 Finally Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art 165 166 Deliberately false accusations of defamation as with any other crime lead to the crime of calumny Article 368 Penal Code which under the Italian legal system is defined as the crime of falsely accusing before the authorities a person of a crime they did not commit As to the trial judgment on the legality of the evidence fades into its relevance 167 Japan Edit The Japanese Penal Code 123 note translation from government but still not official text seems to prescribe these related offences False Accusations false indictment criminal charge criminal accusation information Article 172 Defamation slander libel truth being irrelevant but with Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest Articles 230 230 2 See also 232 prosecuted only upon complaint Insults Article 231 See also 232 prosecuted only upon complaint Damage to Credibility Obstruction of Business defamation of businesses Article 233 Additionally there is an exception stemming from Article XXI of the Constitution concerning freedom of the press which provides that media outlets can avoid liability for defamation if they reasonably believed the defamatory statements they published to be true 168 The Constitution of Japan 169 reads Article 21 Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed No censorship shall be maintained nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated Malaysia Edit In Malaysia defamation is both a tort and a criminal offence meant to protect the reputation and good name of a person The principal statutes relied upon are the Defamation Act 1957 Revised 1983 and the Penal Code Following the practice of other common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom Singapore and India Malaysia relies on case law In fact the Defamation Act 1957 is similar with the English Defamaiton Act 1952 The Malaysian Penal Code is pari materia with the Indian and Singaporean Penal Codes Mexico Edit In Mexico crimes of calumny defamation and slanderous allegation injurias have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in fifteen states These crimes remain in the penal codes of seventeen states where penalty is in average from 1 1 years for ones convicted for slanderous allegation to 3 8 years in jail for those convicted for calumny 170 Netherlands Edit This section does not cite any sources Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed September 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message In the Netherlands defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court Article 167 of book 6 of the Civil Code holds When someone is liable towards another person under this Section because of an incorrect or by its incompleteness misleading publication of information of factual nature the court may upon a right of action legal claim of this other person order the tortfeasor to publish a correction in a way to be set by court If the court grants an injunction the defendant is usually ordered to delete the publication or to publish a rectification statement Norway Edit In Norway defamation was a crime punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine Penal Code Chapter 23 246 When the offense is likely to harm one s good name and reputation or exposes him to hatred contempt or loss of confidence the maximum prison term went up to one year and if the defamation happens in print in broadcasting or through an especially aggravating circumstance imprisonment may have reached two years 247 When the offender acts against his better judgment he was liable to a maximum prison term of three years 248 According to 251 defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons when it may also have been prosecuted by public authorities 171 172 Under the new Penal Code decided upon by the Parliament in 2005 defamation would cease to exist as a crime Rather any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits The Criminal Code took effect on 1 October 2015 Poland Edit In Poland defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position occupation or type of activity Penalties include fine limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year Article 212 1 of the Criminal Code The penalty is more severe when the offence happens through the media Article 212 2 173 When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their nationality ethnicity race religion or lack of religion the maximum prison term is three years 174 Portugal Edit In Portugal defamation crimes are defamation article 180 of the Penal Code up to six months in prison or a fine of up to 240 days injuries art 181 up to three months in prison or a fine up to 120 days and offence to the memory of a deceased person art 185 up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity art 183 up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine and when the victim is an authority art 184 all other penalties aggravated by an extra half There is yet the extra penalty of public knowledge of the court decision costs paid by the defamer art 189 of Penal Code and also the crime of incitement of a crime article 297 up to three years in prison or fine 175 176 Romania Edit As of 2022 there is no such crime as libel insult or defamation 177 Philippines Edit Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines addresses Crimes Against Honor Chapter one of that title addresses libel and slander Libel is defined as public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect real or imaginary or any act omission condition status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead Slander is defined as oral defamation Slander by deed is defined as any act not included and punished in this title which shall cast dishonor discredit or contempt upon another person Penalties of fine or imprisonment are specified for these crimes and for the threat of libel 104 A notable characteristic of these crimes under Philippine law is the specification that they apply to imputations both real and imaginary The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled in 2012 that the libel law of the Philippines was inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as urging that State parties to the Covenant should consider the decriminalisation of libel 107 Saudi Arabia Edit In Saudi Arabia defamation of the state or a past or present ruler is punishable under terrorism legislation 178 In a 2015 case a Saudi writer was arrested for defaming a former ruler of the country Reportedly under a 2014 counterterrorism law actions that threaten Saudi Arabia s unity disturb public order or defame the reputation of the state or the king are considered acts of terrorism The law decrees that a suspect can be held incommunicado for 90 days without the presence of their lawyer during the initial questioning 179 South Korea Edit See also Cyber defamation law South Korea In South Korea both true and false statements can be considered defamation 180 The penalties increase for false statements It is also possible for a person to be criminally defamed when they are no longer alive 181 Criminal defamation occurs when a public statement damages the subject s reputation unless the statement was true and presented solely for the public interest 181 In addition to criminal law which allows for imprisonment up to seven years in case the allegations are false and monetary fines in South Korea one can also sue for damages with civil actions Generally criminal actions proceed civil ones with South Korean police as judicial investigators Former Soviet Union Edit In the former Soviet Union defamatory insults can only constitute a criminal offence not a civil wrong 182 Spain Edit In Spain the crime of calumny Article 205 of the Penal Code consists of accusing someone of a crime knowing the falsity of the accusation or with a reckless contempt for truth Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months fine and for other cases only a fine of six to twelve months fine Article 206 Additionally the crime of injury Article 208 of the Penal Code consists of hurting someone s dignity depreciating his reputation or injuring his self esteem and is only applicable if the offence by its nature effects and circumstances is considered by the general public as strong Injury has a penalty of fine from three to seven months fine or from six to fourteen months fine when it is strong and with publicity According to Article 216 an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge determining the publication of the judicial decision in a newspaper at the expenses of the defamer 183 184 Sweden Edit In Sweden denigration arekrankning is criminalised by Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code Article 1 regulates defamation fortal and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as having a reprehensible way of living or of providing information about them intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others The penalty is a fine 185 It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying 186 187 Article 2 regulates gross defamation grovt fortal and has a penalty of up to two years in prison or a fine In judging if the crime is gross the court should consider whether the information because of its content or the scope of its dissemination is calculated to produce serious damage 185 For example if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths 186 Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2 185 Most obviously the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someone s parents as a way to bypass the law 186 Article 3 regulates other insulting behaviour forolampning not characterised under Article 1 or 2 and is punishable with a fine or if it is gross with up to six months of prison or a fine 185 While an act of defamation involves a third person it is not a requirement for insulting behaviour 186 Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act Chapter 7 both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration 188 Switzerland Edit In Switzerland the crime of wilful defamation is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison or with a fine of at least thirty days fine according to Article 174 2 of the Swiss Criminal Code There is wilful defamation when the offender knows the falsity of his her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one s victim see Articles 174 1 and 174 2 189 190 On the other hand defamation is punished only with a maximum monetary penalty of 180 daily penalty units Article 173 1 191 When it comes to a deceased or absent person there is a limitation to enforce the law up to 30 years after the death 192 With the rise of the internet and also intranets closed computer networks defamatory statements may be communicated on webpages or internal memos without reaching the attention of the courts Such closet defamation may be used to conceal other criminal or negligent acts Thailand Edit The Thai Criminal Code provides that Section 326 DefamationWhoever imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned is said to commit defamation and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht or both Section 327 Defamation to the FamilyWhoever imputing anything the deceased person before the third person and that imputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father mother spouse or child of the deceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation and shall be punished as prescribed by Section 326 193 Criminal defamation charges in Thailand under Section 326 of the Criminal Code are frequently used to censor journalists and activists critical of human rights circumstances for workers in the country 109 United Kingdom Edit The United Kingdom abolished criminal libel on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 194 There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied Notably the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912 Under English common law proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defence only in civil libel cases Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation per se its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant Section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defence in criminal libel cases but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the public benefit 195 United States Edit Main article United States defamation law Criminal defamation Less than half of American states have criminal defamation laws but the applicability of those laws is limited by the First Amendment to the U S Constitution and the laws are rarely enforced 196 There are no criminal defamation or insult laws at the federal level However on the state level 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books Alabama 197 Florida 198 Idaho 199 Illinois 200 Kansas 201 Kentucky 202 Louisiana 203 Massachusetts 204 Michigan 205 Minnesota 206 Mississippi 207 Montana 208 Nevada 209 New Hampshire 210 New Mexico 211 North Carolina 212 North Dakota 213 Oklahoma 214 South Carolina 215 Texas 216 Utah 217 Virginia 218 Wisconsin 219 Puerto Rico 220 and Virgin Islands 221 In addition Iowa criminalizes defamation through case law without statutorily defining it as a crime 222 Noonan v Staples 223 is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defence to libel in the U S but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because Staples did not argue First Amendment protection which is one theory for truth as complete defence for its statements 224 The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties Venezuela Edit In March 2016 a civil action for defamation led to imposition of a four year prison sentence on a newspaper publisher 225 Online defamation EditFurther information Cyber defamation law The rise of the internet as a medium for publication and the expression of ideas including the emergence of social media platforms transcending national boundaries has proven challenging to reconcile with traditional notions of defamation law Questions of jurisdiction and conflicting limitation periods in trans border online defamation cases liability for hyperlinks to defamatory content filing lawsuits against anonymous parties and the liability of internet service providers and intermediaries make online defamation a uniquely complicated area of law 226 As a result courts and legislatures in different jurisdictions have approached online defamation in a variety of different and conflicting ways In South Korea the rise of the internet has led to the emergence of cyber defamation law as a distinct and polarising field of law 227 228 Some Korean celebrities who suffered from severe depression linked malicious online comments later committed suicide j which served in part to stimulate moves to strengthen cyber defamation law The vast majority of cyber defamation police reports in South Korea arise from online games and in 2015 alone South Korean law enforcement received and investigated over 8 000 reports of cyber defamation over half of these cases involve League of Legends where players head to police stations as a retaliation after being verbally abused by teammates or opponents 229 There are even settlement fee hunters where players enter games and grief with intention of being insulted by other players In some cases such settlement fee hunters file police reports against over 50 other individuals at once Most of the victims of settlement fee hunters are teenagers since many parents are willing to pay settlement fees ranging from 300 000 to 2 000 000 KRW US 300 2000 to avoid their children having to go to trial and risk gaining criminal records In 2012 the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175 titled Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Essentially this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as Libel the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code as amended committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from six years and one day to up to twelve years 230 231 232 As of 30 September 2012 update five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression due process equal protection and privacy of communication 233 Australia s first Twitter defamation case to go to trial is believed to be Mickle v Farley The defendant former Orange High School student Andrew Farley was ordered to pay 105 000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform 234 A more recent case in defamation law was Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited 2015 heard in the Federal Court of Australia 235 This judgment was significant as it demonstrated that tweets consisting of even as little as three words can be defamatory as was held in this case 235 Regarding defamation on the internet in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law 236 237 In Singapore Division 2 of Part 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 provides for individuals who have been affected by false statements online to seek a variety of court orders under the tort of harassment that are not available under the pre internet tort of defamation 44 Stop Publication Order an order requiring the tortfeasor to stop making the defamatory statement Correction Order an order for the tortfeasor to publish a correction of the statement Disabling Order an order requiring an internet based intermediaries to disable access to the defamatory statement This is distinct from and does not affect plaintiffs right of action under the common law torts of libel and slander as modified by the Defamation Act 1957 62 The Protection of Harassment Act 2014 which provides for criminal penalties in addition to civil remedies is specifically designed to address a narrower scope of conduct in order to avoid outlawing an overly broad range of speech and is confined to addressing speech that causes harassment alarm or distress 44 Beyond simply addressing novel instances of defamation enabled by the rise of the internet courts around the world have also had to deal with complex jurisdictional issues regarding trans border online defamation On 10 December 2002 the High Court of Australia responded to this emerging phenomenon by vastly expanding the international jurisdiction of Australian courts in its judgment in Dow Jones v Gutnick 238 The judgment established that internet published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law The case gained worldwide attention and is often said inaccurately to be the first of its kind A similar case that predates Dow Jones v Gutnick is Berezovsky v Forbes in England 239 This decision was criticised in the United States 240 though it mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England Scotland France Canada and Italy In response to the expansion of other jurisdictions attempts to enforce judgements in cases of trans border defamation and to a rise in domestic strategic lawsuits against public participation SLAPPs following the rise of the internet the Federal and many state governments in America have adopted statutes limiting the enforceability of offshore defamation judgments and expediting the dismissal of defamation claims American writers and publishers are shielded from the enforcement of offshore libel judgments not compliant under the SPEECH Act which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010 241 It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act also known as Rachel s Law after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws 242 Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously A New Yorker report revealed an online defamation campaign orchestrated by the United Arab Emirates The Arab country paid millions of euros to a Swiss firm Alp Services which put the Emirati money to run campaigns against the targets including Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood The UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed hired Alp to obtain concrete evidence about the two targets and according run dark PR Under the campaign Alp made defamatory Wikipedia entries and published propaganda articles against the Emirati targets 243 Religious views EditCatholic Edit Further information Detraction The Catholic Encyclopedia defines slander as the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent The effects of it are a twofold malice that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor s good name and that of lying as well Theologians say that this latter guilt considered in itself in so far as it is an offence against veracity may not be grievous but that nevertheless it will frequently be advisable to mention it in confession in order that the extent and method of reparation may be settled 244 Defamation in said to be a violation of the eighth commandment Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor Joseph Deharbe lists two possible reasons when one is allowed and even bound to reveal them 1 When it is for the good of the guilty person or 2 When it is necessary for preventing a greater evil 245 In the Epistle of James there are two references to defamation If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and again The tongue is indeed a little member and boasts great things Behold how small a fire what a great wood it kindles James 3 2 5 Based on these verse the Roman Catechism makes the following statement from these words of St James we learn two salutary truths the one that the vice of the tongue is of great extent a truth which derives additional confirmation from these words of the prophet Every man is a liar Ps 115 11 whence this moral disease would seem to be almost the only one which extends to all mankind the other that the tongue is the source of innumerable evils 246 Jean Baptiste Massillon gives a lengthy sermon on defamation in which he states the tongue of the slanderer is a devouring fire which tarnishes whatever it touches which exercises its fury on the good grain equally as on the chaff on the profane as on the sacred which wherever it passes leaves only desolation and ruin digs even into the bowels of the earth and fixes itself on things the most hidden turns into vile ashes what only a moment before had appeared to us so precious and brilliant 247 See also Edit Law portalAbsence of Malice Annie Oakley Libel cases Anti Defamation League Blind item Blood libel Character assassination Chilling effect law Collateral censorship Crimen injuria Criminal libel Cyber Bullying Cyber defamation law Defamation Act Defamation of religion and the United Nations Depp v Heard Dignitary tort False accusation Food libel laws Freedom of speech expression Hate speech Insult legal Intentional tort LGBT grooming conspiracy theory Libel Act Libel tourism Libs of TikTok Malicious prosecution Martin v Hearst Corporation McLibel case Political libel Rector v Major League Baseball Advanced Media Rumor Section 230 Small penis rule Smear campaign Strategic lawsuit against public participation United States free speech exceptionsNotes Edit In some but not all civil and mixed law jurisdictions the term delict is used to refer to this category of civil wrong though it can also refer to criminal offences in some jurisdictions and tort is the general term used in comparative law For instance despite the common belief that the term tort exclusively refers to civil liability in common law jurisdictions Wikipedia has articles discussing conflict of tort laws European tort law and Tort Law in China only using the term delict in articles about jurisdictions which specifically use the term to refer to torts e g Scots Law of Delict and South African law of delict Similarly the English version of the Civil Code of the People s Republic of China uses the term tortfeasor to refer to individuals who incur civil liability 23 In recent times internet publications such as defamatory comments on social media can also constitute libel While this holds true in the majority of common law jurisdictions particularly in the Commonwealth a number of common law jurisdictions no longer recognise any legal distinction between fact and opinion The American Supreme Court in particular has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege 42 For instance Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provide protection for freedom of expression which courts must take into account in developing the case law regarding defamation one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defence against libel charges The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification and not a case where the defence acquitted itself as a matter of law as before the Zenger case defamation law had not provided the defence of truth 73 The tort can be divided up into the following ingredients the defendant participates in publication to a third party of a body of work the body of work contains a passage alleged to be defamatory the passage conveys an imputation the imputation is about the plaintiff the imputation is damaging to the plaintiff s reputation 85 para 158 The vast majority of southern African states apply Roman Dutch law with regard to their law of obligations having adopted South African law which generally applies Roman Dutch private law despite public law deriving from English common law via reception statute under colonial rule Conduct usually takes the form of statements either oral or in writing nevertheless other forms of conduct such as physical contact or gestures could also arise The principles are the same as those applicable to the Aquilian action To determine whether an actor has fulfilled the obligation to reasonably verify the information as provided in Subparagraph 2 of the preceding Article the following factors shall be considered 1 the credibility of the source of the information 2 whether the information that is clearly controversial has been fully investigated 3 the timeliness of the information 4 the relevance of the information with public order and good morals 5 the likelihood that the victim s reputation would be degraded and 6 his ability to verify and the cost for the verification of the information Examples include Lee Eun ju Jung Da Bin U Nee Choi Jin sil Sulli Goo HaraReferences Edit Defamation Legal Information Institute Defamation Definition Slander vs Libel amp Facts Encyclopaedia Britannica Retrieved 14 September 2022 a b Scott Griffen Director of Press Freedom Programmes International Press Institute 7 March 2017 Barbara Trionfi Executive Director International Press Institute ed Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region A Comparative Study Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe Commissioned by the Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic a b Libel and Insult Laws A matrix on where we stand and what we would like to achieve Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe prepared by the office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media 9 March 2005 a b Scott Griffen Director of Press Freedom Programmes International Press Institute 7 March 2017 Barbara Trionfi Executive Director International Press Institute ed Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region A Comparative Study Organization for Security and Co operation in Europe Commissioned by the Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic pp 31 33 Digest 47 10 15 2 Archived 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine Digest 47 10 15 3 6 Archived 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine Digest 47 10 15 25 Archived 7 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine Book 9 Title 36 PDF Archived from the original PDF on 15 May 2011 Retrieved 7 September 2010 Gates Jay Paul Marafioti Nicole 2014 Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo Saxon England p 150 ISBN 9781843839187 Lassiter John C 1978 Defamation of Peers The Rise and Decline of the Action for Scandalum Magnatum 1497 1773 The American Journal of Legal History 22 3 216 236 doi 10 2307 845182 JSTOR 845182 a b Libel and slander www jewishencyclopedia com Herbermann Charles ed 1913 Slander Catholic Encyclopedia New York Robert Appleton Company Detraction Catholic Encyclopedia Retrieved 17 February 2007 a b Saad Hasbollah Bin Mat Defamation A Comparative Study Between the Malaysian Laws and the Islamic Legal Principles Mohamad Abdul Basir 2009 Undang undang Tort Islam Kuala Lumpur Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka pp 383 384 a b Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression February 2004 Briefing Notes on International and Comparative Defamation Standards PDF Retrieved 26 May 2022 a b Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression 2021 Response to the consultations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on her report on disinformation PDF Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Retrieved 26 May 2022 European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols www hri org Tjaco Van Den Hout 15 February 2013 Freedom of Expression and Defamation Latvijas Arpolitikas Instituts Retrieved 26 May 2022 Chapter 2 Bill of Rights Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 as amended Government Printer 1996 via Wikisource The Constitution of Kenya via Wikisource Congress National People s Civil Code of the People s Republic of China via Wikisource Vick Douglas W Macpherson Linda 1 April 1997 An Opportunity Lost The United Kingdom s Failed Reform of Defamation Law Federal Communications Law Journal 49 3 Retrieved 12 August 2015 John William Salmond 1907 The Law of Torts A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries Stevens and Haynes p 385 Retrieved 15 March 2013 english law individual corporation defamation Howard Sam 15 March 2007 Defamation of corporate entities in England Lexology Retrieved 15 March 2013 False Ron Hankin Navigating the Legal Minefield of Private Investigations A Career Saving Guide for Private Investigators Detectives And Security Police Looseleaf Law Publications 2008 p 59 There are five essential elements to defamation 1 The accusation is false and 2 it impeaches the subject s character and 3 it is published to a third person and 4 it damages the reputation of the subject and 5 that the accusation is done intentionally or with fault such as wanton disregard of facts Roger LeRoy Miller Gaylord A Jentz Business Law Today The Essentials Cengage Learning 2007 p 115 In other words making a negative statement about another person is not defamation unless the statement is false and represents something as a fact for example Vladik cheats on his taxes rather than a personal opinion for example Vladik is a jerk Michael G Parkinson L Marie Parkinson Law for advertising broadcasting journalism and public relations Routledge 2006 p 273 Simplifying a very complicated decision the court said that because the plaintiff must prove a statement is false in order to win an action in defamation it is impossible to win an action in defamation if the statement by its very nature cannot be proven false Edward Lee Lamoureux Steven L Baron Claire Stewart Intellectual property law and interactive media free for a fee Peter Lang 2009 p 190 A statement can only be defamatory if it is false therefore true statements of fact about others regardless of the damage rendered are not defamatory although such comments might represent other sorts of privacy or hate speech violations Defamation may occur when one party the eventual defendant if a case goes forward writes or says something that is false about a second party plaintiff such that some third party receives the communication and the communication of false information damages the plaintiff Linda L Edwards J Stanley Edwards Patricia Kirtley Wells Tort Law for Legal Assistants Cengage Learning 2008 p 390 Libel refers to written defamatory statements slander refers to oral statements Libel encompasses communications occurring in physical form defamatory statements on records and computer tapes are considered libel rather than slander Libel 2010 Retrieved 8 November 2010 a b Benenson R 1981 Trial of john peter zenger for libel The CQ Researcher Retrieved 8 November 2010 Peterson Iver 21 March 1997 Firm Awarded 222 7 Million in a Libel Suit Vs Dow Jones The New York Times Houston Archived from the original on 15 November 2013 Retrieved 4 June 2022 a href Template Cite news html title Template Cite news cite news a CS1 maint unfit URL link Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit Amarillo Amarillo com 6 August 1999 Retrieved 15 May 2013 History of the Workers Party 1991 to 2000 Archived from the original on 6 February 2005 Retrieved 19 November 2021 Burton John 30 September 2008 Death of Singaporean maverick Financial Times Archived from the original on 10 December 2022 Retrieved 19 November 2021 J B Jeyaretnam Lawyers Rights Watch Canada 26 March 2012 Archived from the original on 28 September 2018 Retrieved 1 April 2020 Cameron Sim The Singapore Chill Political Defamation and the Normalization of a Statist Rule of Law 20 Pacific Rim Law amp Policy Journal 319 2011 High Court awards PM Lee 210 000 in damages in defamation suits against TOC editor Terry Xu and article author The Straits Times 1 September 2021 Rafsanjani Nazanin 2 April 2010 SLAPP Back Transcript On The Media WNYC National Public Radio PBS Archived from the original on 21 May 2013 Retrieved 29 June 2011 Cal Code of Civil Procedure 425 16 Protection of Public Participation Act 2015 Legislative Assembly of Ontario Retrieved 27 March 2020 Brown Mayer 2013 A4ID Defamation Guide PDF Advocates for International Development Archived from the original PDF on 9 February 2014 Retrieved 14 August 2013 Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co 497 U S 1 1990 Franklin Mark A 1963 The Origins and Constitutionality of Limitations on Truth as a Defense in Tort Law Stanford Law Review 16 4 789 848 doi 10 2307 1227028 JSTOR 1227028 Retrieved 31 October 2017 a b c d Protection from Harassment Act 2014 Singapore Statutes Online sso agc gov sg permanent dead link Lathan v Journal Co 30 Wis 2d 146 158 140 N W 2d 417 423 1966 Equity and Rights in Society Defamation Defences Hobart Community Legal Service Inc 20 March 2018 Retrieved 2 March 2019 Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges Digital Media Law Project Retrieved 31 October 2017 Is Your Reputation So Bad You Cannot Be Defamed Hodgson Russ LLP 9 June 2020 Archived from the original on 30 September 2020 Retrieved 7 November 2021 Arthur Alan Wolk v Walter Olson a b c Defamation Act 2005 NSW s 24 PDF legislation nsw gov au Archived from the original PDF on 18 June 2017 Retrieved 4 August 2015 Dancing With Lawyers Dancing With Lawyers Retrieved 7 September 2010 a b c Bossary Andrew 3 June 2014 Defamation Per Se Be Prepared to Plead and Prove Actual Damages American Bar Association Archived from the original on 31 October 2017 Retrieved 31 October 2017 Defamation Digital Media Law Project Retrieved 31 October 2017 Label of Gay Is No Longer Defamatory Court Rules The New York Times Associated Press 31 May 2012 Retrieved 3 June 2012 Edward C Martin False light Archived 27 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine Cumberland School of Law Samford University 50 Am Jur 2d libel and slander 1 546 New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 U S 254 84 S Ct 710 11 L Ed 2d 686 1964 Sexton Kevin 2010 Us political systems Archived from the original on 18 February 2011 Retrieved 8 November 2010 New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 U S 254 1964 Foreword stylebook fredericksburg com Retrieved 30 March 2017 Patterson T 2009 The American Democracy New York McGraw Hill a b Defamation Act 1957 Singapore Statutes Online Retrieved 25 May 2022 Law Document English View Ontario ca 24 July 2014 Defamation Act 1952 Defamation under Law of Torts LawPage In 19 October 2020 Retrieved 2 January 2021 Pukhraj v State of Rajasthan 1973 SCC Cri 944 Rustom K Karanjia and Anr v Krishnaraj M D Thackersey and Ors 1970 72 BOMLR 94 Ram Jethmalani Vs Subramaniam Swamy 2006 87 DRJ 603 Santosh Tewari and Ors V State of U P and Anr 1996 20 ACR 808 Defamation Act 1952 England Ayesha 6 October 2010 The Tort of Defamation An Analysis of the Law in India and the United Kingdom archived from the original on 1 October 2011 Pattnaik Aju John Defamation Law in India 2 March 2013 Archived from the original on 23 February 2015 Retrieved 16 January 2022 The Trial of John Peter Zenger National Park Service 26 February 2015 Retrieved 31 October 2017 New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 84 S Ct 710 11 L Ed 2d 686 1964 Google Scholar Retrieved 31 October 2017 Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 U S 46 1988 Google Scholar Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co 497 U S 1 1990 Google Scholar Court Cases Defamation and the Internet Retrieved 31 October 2017 Defamation FAQs Media Law Resource Center Archived from the original on 9 September 2021 Retrieved 31 October 2017 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company 1997 HCA 25 1997 189 CLR 520 High Court Australia Dixon Nicolee 2005 Research Brief No 2005 14 Uniform Defamation Laws PDF Queensland Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Library Retrieved 6 September 2020 Defamation Act 2005 NSW s 7 PDF legislation nsw gov au Archived from the original PDF on 18 June 2017 Retrieved 4 August 2015 a b Pearson Mark 1 July 2007 A review of Australia s defamation reforms after a year of operation Australian Journalism Review 29 1 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 1030 7304 Jack Herman David Flint Australian Press Council Press Law in Australia Presscouncil org au Archived from the original on 12 November 2010 Retrieved 7 September 2010 Australian Law Reform Commission 1979 Electronic Frontiers Australia civil liberties online Efa org au Archived from the original on 16 April 2021 Retrieved 7 September 2010 a b Duffy v Google Inc 2015 SASC 170 at 158 27 October 2015 Supreme Court SA Australia Defamation Act 1992 New Zealand as at 1 March 2017 Murphy v LaMarsh 1970 73 W W R 114 Grant v Torstar Corp 2009 SCC 61 2009 3 SCR 640 22 December 2009 Supreme Court Canada Astley v Verdun 2011 ONSC 3651 14 June 2011 Superior Court of Justice Ontario Canada Farallon Mining Ltd v Arnold 2011 BCSC 1532 10 November 2011 Supreme Court British Columbia Canada Elspeth C Reid Personality Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law W Green 2010 at para 1 02 Elspeth C Reid Personality Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law W Green 2010 at para 17 17 Elspeth C Reid Personality Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots Law W Green 2010 at para 17 13 Robert Black A Historical Survey of Delictual Liability in Scotland for Personal Injuries and Death Continued 1975 8 CILS 189 at 195 David Ibbetson Iniuria Roman and English in Eric Descheemaeker and Helen Scott Iniuria and the Common Law Hart 2013 at 40 Civil Code Amended 2008 05 23 Ministry of Justice R O C Taiwan Archived from the original on 17 February 2012 Retrieved 27 May 2022 a b c d e Congress National People s Civil Code of the People s Republic of China via Wikisource Civil Code of the Republic of China Article 195 a b Dominique Mondoloni June 2014 Legal Divisions Index on Censorship 43 2 84 87 doi 10 1177 0306422014537174 S2CID 147433423 Retrieved 25 May 2022 Index on Censorship 19 August 2013 France Strict defamation and privacy laws limit free expression Retrieved 25 May 2022 Scott Griffen 25 September 2014 In France judicial evolution in defamation cases protects work of civil society International Press Institute Retrieved 25 May 2022 MINPO Civil Code art 723 Japan a b Republic of the Philippines 11 November 1980 The Revised Penal Code Chan Robles law Firm Retrieved 2 February 2012 Art 353 Definition of libel A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect real or imaginary or any act omission condition status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead Legal dictionary findlaw com Retrieved 24 November 2006 Legal Terms legal org Archived from the original on 22 April 2008 Retrieved 22 October 2004 a b c Libel law violates freedom of expression UN rights panel The Manila Times 30 January 2012 Archived from the original on 9 May 2013 Civil and Commercial Code Torts Section 420 437 Thailand Law Library 12 February 2015 a b Thailand UN experts condemn use of defamation laws to silence human rights defender Andy Hall Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 17 May 2018 Retrieved 26 May 2022 Book 1 Title 2 of the Civil Code of Quebec Societe Radio Canada c Radio Sept iles inc 1994 CanLII 5883 1994 RJQ 1811 1 August 1994 Court of Appeal Quebec Canada in French Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws Article19 org Archived from the original on 3 November 2011 Retrieved 7 September 2010 dead link ARTICLE 19 statements Archived 18 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine on criminalised defamation Idaho Code 18 4801 Archived 2009 10 01 at the Wayback Machine Louisiana Revised Statute 14 47 Archived 2011 07 04 at the Wayback Machine Nevada Revised Statutes 200 510 and No Place in the Law The Ignominy of Criminal Libel in American Jurisprudence by Gregory C Lisby 9 Comm L amp Pol y 433 footnote 386 R v Orme and Nutt 1700 King v Osborne 1732 Kallgren Edward 1953 Group Libel California Law Review 41 2 290 299 doi 10 2307 3478081 JSTOR 3478081 a b c World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017 2018 UNESCO 2018 p 202 Dohel Ilia IRIS 2006 10 2 1 Ilia Dohel Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Representative on Freedom of the Media Report on Achievements in the Decriminalization of Defamation Council of Europe Archived from the original on 20 January 2013 Retrieved 7 September 2010 PACE Resolution 1577 2007 Towards decriminalisation of defamation Assembly of the Council of Europe 4 October 2007 Archived from the original on 10 July 2010 Retrieved 7 September 2010 a b Penal Code India National Informatics Centre Legislative Department Ministry of Law and Justice Government of India a b Defamation Act 2009 Ireland Law Reform Commission of Ireland a b Penal Code Japan Japanese Law Translation Database System Albanian Penal Code 2017 Art 120 par 1 Albanian Penal Code 2017 Art 120 par 2 Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania English version Legislationline org Archived from the original on 13 June 2010 Retrieved 7 September 2010 European Council Apercu des legislations nationales en matiere de diffamation et d injure English version Section Albania Coe int Retrieved 7 September 2010 in Spanish Argentine Penal Code official text Crimes Against Honor Articles 109 to 117 bis European Council Laws on Defamation English version Section Austria Coe int Retrieved 7 September 2010 European Council Laws on Defamation English version Section Azerbaijan Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic English Legislationline org Archived from the original on 13 August 2015 Retrieved 7 September 2010 OSCE report Libel and Insult Laws Archived 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine see page 19 in French Belgian Penal Code Crimes against honour see Articles 443 to 453 bis European Council Laws on Defamation Section Belgium French Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 in Portuguese Brazilian Penal Code official text European Council Laws on Defamation English version Section Bulgary Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 s 298 Criminal Code Canada s 301 Criminal Code Canada s 300 Criminal Code Canada Mann Arshy 29 September 2014 The trouble with criminal speech Canadian Lawyer Archived from the original on 7 March 2017 Retrieved 6 March 2017 Cyberbullying restaurant owner gets 90 days in jail CBC 16 November 2012 Retrieved 23 February 2021 Libel and Insult Laws A Matrix on Where We Stand and What We Would Like to Achieve OSCE 9 March 2005 at page 40 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Croatia Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 in Spanish Chilean Penal Code Book II see Articles 412 to 431 IEstudiosPenales com ar Penal Code of Chile PDF in Spanish 578 KB see pages 75 78 in Spanish Chilean Penal Code Book I see Articles 25 and 30 in Spanish Biblioteca jus gov ar Penal Code of Chile see articles 416 417 and 424 425 Criminal Law of the People s Republic of China Archived 20 September 2021 Date mismatch at the Wayback Machine Congressional Executive Commission on China a b c Judicial Yuan Interpretation No 509 permanent dead link translated by Joe Y C Wu Huang Yu Zhe 26 January 2022 Taiwan needs to decriminalise libel Taipei Times Retrieved 30 May 2022 Czech Criminal Code Law No 40 2009 Coll Article 184 Business center cz Retrieved 7 September 2010 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Denmark Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 OSCE report on defamation laws English Archived 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine see page 51 item 6 The Criminal Code of Finland English version PDF Retrieved 15 February 2012 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Finland Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 Bundeskriminalamt Federal Police Yearly Statistics 2006 PDF Archived from the original PDF on 14 April 2008 Retrieved 7 September 2010 OSCE Report on Defamation laws in Europe and North America Archived 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine see page 68 items 6 and 7 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Greece Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 Swamy Subramanian 21 September 2004 Defamation litigation a survivor s kit The Hindu Archived from the original on 22 July 2013 Retrieved 28 November 2013 Constitution India Legislative Department Ministry of Law and Justice Government of India Defamation Indian Penal Code 1860 Criminal Procedure Code India National Informatics Centre Legislative Department Ministry of Law and Justice Government of India Wood Kieron Defamation Law in Ireland www lawyer ie Retrieved 19 February 2019 Dei delitti contro la persona Libro II Titolo XII AltaLex in Italian Retrieved 27 May 2020 OSCE Report on Insult Laws in Europe and North America Archived 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine see page 79 item 8 in Italian Italian Penal Code see Article 31 Buonomo Giampiero 2001 Commento alla decisione della Corte europea dei diritti dell uomo di ricevibilita del ricorso n 48898 99 Diritto amp Giustizia Edizione Online in Italian Archived from the original on 11 December 2019 Retrieved 17 March 2016 Judgment of June 25 1969 Kochi v Japan Saik6sai Supreme Court 23 Keishil 7 at 259 Japan Constitution Japan Official Website of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet Delitos de injuria difamacion y calumnia en los codigos penales de Mexico Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine European Council Defamation Laws English Section Norway Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 Norwegian Penal Code English version Legislationline org Archived from the original on 24 February 2021 Retrieved 7 September 2010 European Council Defamation Laws English Section Poland Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 OSCE Report on Defamation Laws in Europe and North America Archived 16 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine see page 117 item 6 in Portuguese Portuguese Penal Code Archived 17 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine articles 180 to 189 Portuguese Penal Code official version PDF in Portuguese 641 KB full text Mona Scărișoreanu Romania printre puținele state europene care au dezincriminat insulta și calomnia Archived 1 February 2021 at the Wayback Machine in Romania Liberă 31 martie 2014 accesat la 5 octombrie 2015 Saudi Arabia passes anti terror law banning defamation Gulf News Retrieved 30 March 2018 Alsaafin Linah 15 July 2015 Saudi writer arrested for insulting long dead king Middle East Eye Middle East Eye Retrieved 1 June 2016 Back Sang Hyun Problems with Korea s Defamation Law Korea Economic Institute of America Archived from the original on 22 September 2019 Retrieved 22 September 2019 a b Park S Nathan 15 December 2014 Is South Korea s Criminal Defamation Law Hurting Democracy The Wall Street Journal Retrieved 14 January 2021 Copyright Defamation and Privacy in Soviet Civil Law Levitsky Serge L Law in Eastern Europe No 22 I Issued by the Documentation Office for East European Law from the University of Leyden page 114 in Spanish Penal Code of Spain Articles 205 to 216 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Spain Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 a b c d Swedish Penal Code English version permanent dead link see Chapter 5 a b c d Strom E Om att utsattas for krankningar pa jobbet Archived 30 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine in Swedish Department of Work Science University of Gothenburg Frigyes Paul I vantan pa juryn Journalisten 25 November 2008 European Council Laws on Defamation English Section Sweden Council of Europe Retrieved 7 September 2010 in French Swiss Penal Code Calumny Article 174 Swiss criminal code in English 1 in French Swiss Penal Code Defamation Article 173 in French Swiss Penal Code Defamation and calumny against a deceased or absent person Article 175 Criminal Code Defamation Sections 326 333 Thailand Law Library 19 March 2015 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 legislation gov uk The National Archives 2009 c 25 Folkard Henry Coleman 1908 The Law of Slander and Libel London Butterworth amp Co p 480 public benefit Criminal Defamation Laws in North America Committee to Protect Journalists Retrieved 31 October 2017 Alabama Revised Statutes 13A 11 160 13A 11 164 Florida Statutes 836 01 836 11 Idaho Code 18 4801 18 4809 Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720 300 related only to banking and trust businesses not to individuals Kansas Statutes Annotated 21 6103 a 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes 432 280 related only to acting judges and courts Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 47 Massachusetts Revised Statutes Ch 272 98C related only to publishing materials aiming at spreading hatred against groups of people of a race skin colour religion thus in practice serving as a sort of hate crime law but still it is classified as a libel Michigan Compiled Laws 750 370 750 371 Minnesota Statutes 609 765 Mississippi Code Annotated 97 3 55 Montana Code Annotated 45 8 212 Nevada Revised Statutes 200 510 200 560 New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 644 11 New Mexico Statutes Annotated 30 11 1 North Carolina General Statutes 14 47 North Dakota Century Code 12 1 15 01 Oklahoma Statutes tit 27 771 781 South Carolina Code of Laws 16 7 150 Texas Finance Code 59 002 89 101 119 202 122 251 199 001 respectively related only to banks savings and loans associations savings banks credit unions state trust companies Utah Code Annotated 76 9 404 Virginia Code Annotated 18 2 417 Wisconsin Statutes 942 01 Puerto Rico Laws tit 33 4101 4104 Virgin Islands Code Title 14 1172 1182 no statutorily defined crime but article 1 7 of the Iowa Constitution states that truth shall be a defence in criminal libel lawsuits The case of Park v Hill 380 F Supp 2d 1002 N D Iowa 2005 set the basic rules of Iowa about criminal defamation libel defining what it is while the case of State v Heacock 76 N W 654 Iowa 1898 set the Iowan rules about public persecution for the crime Noonan v Staples 556 F 3d 20 1st Cir 2009 rehearing denied 561 F 3d 4 1st Cir 2009 accessed 15 December 2014 Noonan n 15 Anatoly Kurmanaev 12 March 2016 Venezuelan Court Sentences Newspaper Publisher to Prison Four year sentence raises concerns about press intimidation in the troubled South American country The Wall Street Journal Retrieved 16 March 2016 defamation of a businessman connected to government owned iron miner Ferrominera Orinoco Karem Tirmandi 12 May 2022 Canada Internet Defamation For Businesses And Professionals Mondaq Retrieved 30 May 2022 Kang Hyun kyung 11 January 2009 Parties Clash Over Freedom of Expression Korea Times Lee Tee Jong 13 October 2008 Seoul rushes Internet Bill The Straits Times 욕설 넘치는 온라인게임 롤 모욕죄 고소 난무 m hankookilbo com Archived from the original on 24 October 2018 Lee The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Sun Star Davao 21 September 2012 Archived from the original on 22 September 2012 Retrieved 20 September 2012 Harry Roque Jr 20 September 2012 Cybercrime law and freedom of expression Manila Standard Archived from the original on 22 September 2012 Republic Act No 10175 Official Gazette Office of the President of the Philippines 12 September 2012 Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens The Daily Tribune 30 September 2012 Archived from the original on 29 October 2012 Whitbourn Michaela 4 March 2014 The tweet that cost 105 000 The Sydney Morning Herald Retrieved 2 March 2019 a b Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited 2015 FCA 652 Federal Court Australia Crookes v Newton 2011 SCC 47 2011 3 SCR 269 19 October 2011 Supreme Court Canada Cyber Libel Updates Archives McConchie Law Corporation Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick 2002 HCA 56 2002 210 CLR 575 High Court Australia Law Lords Department House of Lords Berezovsky v Michaels and Others Glouchkov v Michaels and Others Consolidated Appeals The Stationery Office Archived from the original on 17 August 2000 Retrieved 7 September 2010 Letter From the Editor Barron s Online Online barrons com 25 October 2004 Retrieved 7 September 2010 Green Dana The SPEECH Act Provides Protection Against Foreign Libel Judgments Litigation News American Bar Association Archived from the original on 7 November 2017 Retrieved 31 October 2017 Shapiro Ari 21 March 2015 On Libel and the Law U S And U K Go Separate Ways National Public Radio Parallels Retrieved 31 October 2017 The Dirty Secrets of a Smear Campaign New Yorker Retrieved 27 March 2023 Delany Joseph Francis 1912 Slander In Herbermann Charles ed Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14 New York Robert Appleton Company Deharbe Joseph 1912 Chap II The Ten Commandments of God A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion Translated by Rev John Fander Schwartz Kirwin amp Fauss Part 3 The Eighth Commandment The catechism of the Council of Trent Translated by James Donovan Lucas Brothers 1829 Massillon Jean Baptiste 1879 Sermon VI On evil speaking Sermons by John Baptist Massillon Thomas Tegg amp Sons Bibliography This article incorporates text from a free content work Licensed under CC BY SA 3 0 IGO license statement permission Text taken from World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017 2018 202 UNESCO To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles please see this how to page For information on reusing text from Wikipedia please see the terms of use External links Edit Look up defamation slander or libel in Wiktionary the free dictionary Wikisource has the text of a 1905 New International Encyclopedia article about Libel Quotations related to Defamation at Wikiquote Defamation at Curlie Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Defamation amp oldid 1165581010, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.