In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,^[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

In common law Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals , rather than through legislative statutes or executive action jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts Privacy law is the area of law concerned with the protection and preservation of the privacy rights of individuals. Increasingly, governments and other public as well as private organizations collect vast amounts of personal information about individuals for a variety of purposes. The law of privacy regulates the type of information which may be, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share basic common themes. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity, the wish to remain unnoticed or."^[2]

False light "False light" is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy, and if successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages)'s mental There are many theories of the mind and its function. The earliest recorded works on the mind are by Zarathushtra, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, Adi Shankara and other ancient Greek, Indian and Islamic philosophers. Pre-scientific theories, based in theology, concentrated on the relationship between the mind and the soul, the supernatural, divine or emotional An emotion is a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Emotions are subjective experiences, or experienced from an individual point of view. Emotion is often associated with mood, temperament, personality, and disposition. The English word 'emotion' is derived from the French word é well-being."^[3] If a publication To publish is to make content publicly known. The term is most frequently applied to the distribution of text or images on paper, or to the placing of content on a website of information Information as a concept has a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation is false Falsity or falsehood is a perversion of truth originating in the deceitfulness of one party, and culminating in the damage of another party. Falsity is also a measure of the quality or extent of the falseness of something, while a falsehood may also mean simply an incorrect (false) statement, independent of any intention to deceive, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication Communication is a process of transferring information from one source to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules. Communication is commonly defined as "the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, is not technically The term legal technicality is a casual or colloquial phrase referring to a technical aspect of law. The phrase is not a term of art in the law; it has no exact meaning, nor does it have a legal definition. The words "legal technicality" are often used in a pejorative sense to denote technical aspects of law which result in a legal false but is still misleading Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths, then a tort of false light might have occurred.^[3]

History

In the later Roman jurisprudence Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome. As used in the West the term commonly refers to legal developments prior to the Roman/Byzantine state's adopting Greek as its official language in the 7th century. As such the development of Roman law covers more than one thousand years from the law of the Twelve Tables to the Corpus Juris Civilis of, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt within the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, 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. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.^{[citation needed]}

The law thus 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 vindictive 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 we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils Pasquinade refers to an anonymous lampoon, whether in verse or in prose. Pasquin was the name ordinary Romans gave to a battered ancient statue (from a Hellenistic-style group, probably of the 3rd century BC) dug up in the course of paving the Parione district and erected at the corner of Piazza di Pasquino and Palazzo Braschi, on the west side of, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.

Types of torts

Slander and libel

The common law Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals , rather than through legislative statutes or executive action origins of defamation lie in the torts Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations. A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or "liable," for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel^[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.^[6] 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, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel." The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialog which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry.^[7]

Criminal defamation

Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 is a London-based human rights organisation with a specific mandate and focus on the defence and promotion of freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide. The organisation takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:, a free expression advocacy group, has published global maps^[8] 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.^[9]

Defenses

Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

Truth

In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial and opinion An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines The Philippines, officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia with Manila as its capital city. It comprises 7,107 islands in the western Pacific Ocean, truth alone is not a defense.^[10] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive".^[11]

It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth). Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in", but rather "that which is in the interest of the public".

^{[12] [13]}

Noonan v. Staples is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not a always a defense to libel, but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because for some reason Staples didn't argue First Amendment protection for its statements. (see footnote at bottom of page 15 of the courts decision) The courts often don't decide cases on issues not argued by the parties, and thus the court assumed for the sake of that particular case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

• "Absolute privilege Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection of civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one's duties as a legislature. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system. A similar mechanism is" 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 (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
• "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense 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. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Other defenses

Defenses to claims of defamation include:

• Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true A mistake of fact may sometimes offer exculpation by allowing a criminal defendant some relief from liability for having broken the law. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense 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.
• Privilege A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted is a defense when witness A witness has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses , and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event firsthand is known as an "eye-witness". Witnesses are often called before a court of law to testify in trials testimony In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court A court is a body, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes and dispense civil, criminal, or administrative justice in accordance with rules of law. In common law and civil law states, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature A legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the power to create and change laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. Legislatures are known by many names, the most common being parliament and congress, although these terms also have more specific meanings, or statements made by a person to his spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
• Opinion An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.^[14]
• Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments 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 In mathematical logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if its inference rules prove only formulas that are valid with respect to its semantics. In most cases, this comes down to its rules having the property of preserving truth, but this is not the case in general. The word derives from the Germanic 'Sund' as in gesund,; if a reasonable person The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law representing an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
• Consent Consent can be either express or implied. For example, participation in a contact sport usually implies consent to contact by other participants, when contact is permitted by the rules of the sport. Express consent exists when verbal or written contractual agreement occurs is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant The petitioner may seek a legal remedy if the state or another private person has acted unlawfully. In this case, the petitioner, often called a plaintiff, will submit a plea to a court to resolve the dispute consented to the dissemination of the statement.
• Innocent dissemination A person who is found to have published a defamatory statement may avail to a defence of innocent dissemination where it can be shown that they had no knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement, there was nothing to lead them to believe so, and they were not negligent in failing to discover it is a defense available when a defendant A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence Negligence is a legal concept in the common law legal systems usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). However, the concept is sometimes used in criminal law as well. "Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness", because someone. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
• Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., 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 defense is that the person had such a bad reputation Reputation is the opinion of the public toward a person, a group of people, or an organization. It is an important factor in many fields, such as education, business, online communities or social status before the libel, that no further damage In law, damages are a type of legal remedy and refer to the money paid or awarded to a person following a successful claim by that person in a civil action could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton Paris Whitney Hilton is an American socialite, media personality, model, recording artist, author and actress, Michael Jackson Michael Joseph Jackson was an American recording artist, entertainer and businessman. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he made his debut as an entertainer in 1968 as a member of The Jackson 5. He then began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group, and that successful career led to him being dubbed the "King of Pop", and O.J. Simpson Orenthal James "O. J." Simpson , nicknamed "The Juice", is a retired American football player, actor, spokesman, and convicted felon. He originally attained fame in sports as a running back at the collegiate and professional levels, and was the first NFL player to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a season, a mark he set during.
• 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.

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "from first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.

Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official An official is someone who holds an office in an organisation or government and participates in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private) (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following).^[15]

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press The Associated Press is an American news agency. The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to 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. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

Defamation and freedom of speech

Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.^[16]

Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.^[17]

There is a broader consensus against laws which criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize defamation.^[18][19] 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).

Defamation laws by jurisdiction

Internationally

Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states

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.

Europe

The ecommerce regulations (EC Directive) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022013.htm The "mere conduit" defence

England

Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307),^{[citation needed]} though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I.^{[citation needed]} From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

There are only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. For example, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.

Scotland

In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions which base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is "veritas".

Germany

In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing.^[20] The relevant sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the 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), §190 (Defamation by means of a non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.

United States

The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. 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, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States 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". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or which involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.

Most states recognize 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.^[21]

Slander per se

The four (4) categories of slander which are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

Singapore

Rights groups such as Amnesty International have argued that "the misuse of defamation suits by ruling People's Action Party (PAP) leaders has contributed to a climate of self-censorship in Singapore and restricted the right of those Singaporeans with dissenting opinions to participate freely and fully in public life".^[22]

Owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.^[23]

In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million (approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected.^[24]

On September 24, 2008, the High Court of Singapore, in a summary judgment by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine-Hugo Restall, editor, defamed Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Australia

Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although 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 Association (1997).

Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in his or her Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case has gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.^[25]

Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.^[26] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

Controversial uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss. ^[27]

Canada

As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.^[28] 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 him or herself to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense 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.

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a causal connection 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.^[29]

The criminal portion of the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, and all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, in 1994 Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.^[30]

Religious law

Related torts

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "outrageousness", or "convicium," 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". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance 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."

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.

References

1. ^ E.g. in the case the offence of defamatory libel under the common law of England and Wales, where prior to the enactment of section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 (defence of justification for the public benefit), the truth of the defamatory statement was irrelevant, and it continues to be sufficient that it is published to the defamed person alone.
2. ^ Center for Visual Computing Invasion of Privacy
3. ^ ^{a b} False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
4. ^ from Latin : libellus ("little book") ("Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version". Christian Technologies, Inc.. 1828. http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=libel. Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
5. ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=libel&searchmode=none. Retrieved on 2006-12-31. )
6. ^ 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1-546
7. ^ "out-law.com". August 8, 2008. http://www.out-law.com/page-9330.
8. ^ Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws
9. ^ ARTICLE 19 statements on criminalized defamation
10. ^ Republic of the Philippines. "The Revised Penal Code". Chan Robles law Firm. http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm. Retrieved on 2006-11-24. "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."
11. ^ See, for example, Section 18-13-105, Colorado Revised Statutes
12. ^ "Legal dictionary". findlaw.com. http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=61/610d76026e388dc5e6c88e6a8ddcef8d#public%20interest. Retrieved on 2006-11-24.
13. ^ "Legal Terms". legal.org. http://www.canona650.com. Retrieved on 2004-10-22.
14. ^ Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
15. ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
16. ^ Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
17. ^ BBC News, reporting the comments of Professor Michael Geist, July 31, 2006
18. ^ 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
19. ^ PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation
20. ^ Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006
21. ^ http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel-slander-per-se.shtml
22. ^ Document - Singapore: Defamation suits threaten Chee Soon Juan and erode freedom of expression Amnesty International
23. ^ Libel On The Internet: An International Problem
24. ^ The recent spat by the DBS bank is proof that the libel law in Singapore needs to be reformed
25. ^ House of Lords - Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals)
26. ^ Letter From the Editor - Barron's Online
27. ^ http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html Australian Press Council - Press Law in Australia
28. ^ Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
29. ^ Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-Îles inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1811 canlii.org
30. ^ Moles, Robert N, PhD. "Canada reports: Libel case may set precedent". Networked Knowledge. http://netk.net.au/Canada/Canada15.asp. Retrieved on 2009-01-03.

External links

• Defamation at the Open Directory Project
• Libel and Defamation at Media Law Web, Winchester University, UK: Note navigate from front page to 'teaching materials > Media Law Web'

See also

• Alienation of affections
• Criminal libel
• Defamation Act
• Dignitary torts
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)
• Intentional torts
• Invasion of privacy
• Libel Act
• Libel tourism
• Malicious prosecution
• Small penis rule

Categories: Communication of falsehoods | Defamation | Journalism ethics | Tort law | Crimes

See Also:

• Defamation

What Links Here:

Recently Viewed Pages:

• Wiktionary:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License: Dictionary
• Arts Journalism: Encyclopedia
• News Values: Encyclopedia
• Environmental Journalism: Encyclopedia
• Objectivity (Journalism): Encyclopedia
• Contraction (Grammar): Encyclopedia
• Blogosphere: Dictionary
• Splog: Dictionary
• Medical Journalism: Encyclopedia
• Photoblog: Encyclopedia

Most Popular Pages:

• Tailrank.com
• Trent Lott: News
• Environmental Journalism: Encyclopedia
• Contraction (Grammar): Encyclopedia
• WebEx: Images
• Website: Encyclopedia
• Blogosphere: Dictionary
• MP3 Blog: Encyclopedia
• List of Journalism Articles: Encyclopedia
• Splog: Dictionary

Related 'Defamation' Searches: