Defamation

Defamationis acommunicationthat injures a third party'sreputationand causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to makingassertionsthat arefalsifiable,and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – likedignityandhonour.In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes betweenlibel(written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) andslander(oral speech). It is treated as acivil wrong(tort,delict), as acriminal offence,or both.^[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 alegal personin general
Insult against a legal person in general
Acts againstpublic officials
Acts against state institutions (government,ministries,government agencies,armed forces)
Acts againststate symbols
Acts against thestateitself
Acts againstheads of state
Acts againstreligions(blasphemy)
Acts against thejudiciaryorlegislature(contempt of court)

History[edit]

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.^{[citation needed]}

Roman lawwas 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, thelibriorlibelli famosi,from which is derived the modern use of the wordlibel;and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations orpasquils,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.^{[citation needed]}

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 toUlpian,not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument ofLabeo,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 anactio 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.^{[citation needed]}

InAnglo-Saxon England,whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions,^{[citation needed]}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 Englisharistocracywas calledscandalum magnatum,literally "the scandal of magnates".^[11]

Human rights[edit]

Following theSecond World Warand with the rise of contemporaryinternational human rights law,the right to a legal remedy for defamation was included in Article 17 of theUnited 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 theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.^[12]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".^[12]Consequently, international human rights law provides that while individuals 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 ofthe pressentails:^[13]

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.^[14]Additionally, restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws (including theEuropean 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 theUnited Nations Human Rights Committeewhich 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".^[15]This test is analogous to theOakes Testapplied domestically by theSupreme Court of Canadain assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under Section 1 of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,the "necessary in a democratic society"test applied by theEuropean Court of Human Rightsin assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR,Section 36of the post-Apartheid Constitution of South Africa,^[16]and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya.^[17]Nevertheless, the worldwide use of criminal^[18]and civildefamation,to censor, intimidate or silence critics, has been increasing in recent years.^[19]

General comment No. 34[edit]

In 2011, theUnited Nations Human Rights Committeepublished their General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34) – regarding Article 19 of the ICCPR.^[20]

Paragraph 47 states:

Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3 [of Article 19 of the ICCPR], and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as thedefence of truthand they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments aboutpublic figures,consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, apublic interestin the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider thedecriminalizationof defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others.

Defamation as a tort[edit]

While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently, it is typically regarded as a tort^[a]for which the offended party cantake civil action.The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range fromdamagesto 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 fromEnglish 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^[22]^[23]^[24]) 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 contemporarycommon lawjurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.^[25]Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, calledslander,and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, calledlibel.^[26]The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in theformin 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.^[27]^[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.^[28]The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$222.7 million was rendered in 1997 againstDow Jonesin favour of MMAR Group Inc;^[29]however, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.^[30]

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 rulingPeople's Action Partyto harass and suppress opposition leaders such asJ. B. Jeyaretnam^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]Over the first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon ofstrategic lawsuits against public participationhas 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.^[36]As a result,tort reform measureshave been enacted in various jurisdictions; theCalifornia Code of Civil Procedureand Ontario'sProtection of Public Participation Actdo so by enabling defendants to make aspecial motion to strikeor dismiss during whichdiscoveryis suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff.^[37]^[38]

Defences[edit]

There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions.^[39]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.^[41]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".^[42]Similarly, the American doctrine ofsubstantial truthprovides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true.^[43]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.

It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-foundedpublic interestin the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even forpublic figures.Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public".^[44]^[45]

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 formalicious prosecutionorperjury) 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 arelogically unsound;if areasonable personcould 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:Adefendantis 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 tonegligence.
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 badreputationbefore the libel, that no furtherdamagecould 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 thereisthird-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.

Defamation per se[edit]

Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatoryper se,such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.^[50]In an action for defamationper 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 defamationper se,there are four general categories of false statement that typically support aper seaction:^[51]

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.^[51] As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamationper se.This means that even if the statement would be considered defamatoryper seif false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamationper secannot survive.^[52]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 tohomosexuality,ruled that describing someone asgayis not defamation.^[53]

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 separatetortor delict ofinjury,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'sProtection from Harassment Act 2014is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute.^[42]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 generallytrademark dilution,"intentional interference with contract",and" negligent misrepresentation ". In America, for example, the unique tort offalse lightprotects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading.^[54]Libel and slander both require publication.^[55]

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 withactual malice(i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth).^[56]^[57]A series of court rulings led byNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for apublic 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).^[58]TheAssociated Pressestimates 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.^[59]Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. An early example of libel is the case ofJohn Peter Zengerin 1735. Zenger was hired to publish theNew York Weekly Journal.When he printed another man's article criticisingWilliam Cosby,theroyal governorofColonial New York,Zenger was accused ofseditious libel.^[28]The verdict was returned asnot guiltyon 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 ofNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan(1964). TheSupreme Court of the United Statesoverruled a state court inAlabamathat had foundThe New York Timesguilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating studentcivil rightsactivists. Even though some of whatThe Timesprinted was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof ofactual malice,which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth".^[60]

Many jurisdictions within theCommonwealth(e.g. Singapore,^[61]Ontario,^[62]and the United Kingdom^[63]) have enacted legislation to:

Codify the defences offair commentand 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 theDefamation Act 2013.

Defamation inIndian tort lawlargely resembles that ofEngland and Wales.Indian courts have endorsed^[64]the defences of absolute^[65]and qualified privilege,^[66]fair comment,^[67]and justification.^[68]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,^[69]there is no corresponding provision in India, though it is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent.^[70]Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention.^[71]

The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date theAmerican Revolution.^[e]Though theFirst Amendment of the American Constitutionwas 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, theSupreme Courtdid 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 caseNew York Times Co. v. Sullivandramatically 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".^[73]Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims,^[74]as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation.^[75]Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet.^[76]

American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and theCommonwealth 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.^[77]Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law.^[51]

New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is theDefamation Act 1992which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed theDefamation Act 1954.^[78]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 mostCommonwealthjurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except inQuebecwhere 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.^[79]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. InHill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto(1995), theSupreme Court of Canadarejected theactual malicetest adopted in the US caseNew 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,^[80]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.^[81]^[82]

Corporate defamation[edit]

Common law jurisdictions vary as to whether they permit corporate plaintiffs in defamation actions. Under contemporary Australian law, private corporations are denied the right to sue for defamation, with an exception for small businesses (corporations with less than 10 employees and no subsidiaries); this rule was introduced by the state of New South Wales in 2003, and then adopted nationwide in 2006.^[83]By contrast, Canadian law grants private corporations substantially the same right to sue for defamation as individuals possess.^[83]Since 2013, English law charts a middle course, allowing private corporations to sue for defamation, but requiring them to prove that the defamation caused both serious harm and serious financial loss, which individual plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate.^[83]

Roman Dutch and Scots law[edit]

Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law (i.e. most of Southern Africa,^[f]Indonesia, Suriname, and the Dutch Caribbean) gives rise to a claim by way of "actio iniuriarum".For liability under theactio 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 theactio iniuriarumare as follows:

harm, in the form of a violation of a personality interest (one'scorpus,dignitasandfama);
wrongful conduct;^[g]and
intention.

Under theactio iniuriarum,harm consists in the infringement of a personality right, either "corpus", "dignitas", or "fama".Dignitasis 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 provecontumelia.This includes insult (iniuriain 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 andactio iniuriarumpertaining 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'scorpusprovides civil remedies for assaults, acts of a sexual or indecent nature, and 'wrongful arrest and detention'.

InScots law,which is closely related to Roman Dutch law, the remedy for defamation is similarly theactio iniuriariumand 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'.^[84]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'.^[85]Theactio iniuriarumheritage 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.^[86]Anactio iniuriarumrequires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious'^[87]—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.^[88]

Defamation as a crime[edit]

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^[89]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.^[90]

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.^[91]

TheOrganization 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 theCommonwealth of Independent States,America, and Canada.^[4]

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 ofR 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."^[92]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 isKing 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."^[93]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.^[94]For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts.

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 restrictfreedom of expression.Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as theCouncil of EuropeandOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation.^[95]^[96]The freedom of expression advocacy groupArticle 19opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law.^[13]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 wasLingens v. Austria(1986).

Laws by jurisdiction[edit]

Summary table[edit]

Criminal defamation laws by country^[5]
Country	General offences	Special offences	Custodial sentences
Albania	•
Andorra	•	•	•
Armenia		Unclear	Unclear
Austria	•	•	•
Azerbaijan	•	•	•
Belarus	•	•	•
Belgium	•	•	•
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria	•	•
Canada	•	•	•
Croatia	•	•	•
Cyprus		•	•
Czech Republic	•		•
Denmark	•	•	•
Estonia		•	•
Finland	•	•	•
France	•	•
Georgia		Unclear	Unclear
Germany	•	•	•
Greece	•	•	•
Hungary	•		•
Iceland	•	•	•
India^[97]	•	•	•
Ireland^[98]
Italy	•	•	•
Japan^[99]	•	•	•
Kazakhstan	•	•	•
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia	•		•
Liechtenstein	•	•	•
Lithuania	•		•
Luxembourg	•	•	•
Malta	•	•	•
Moldova
Monaco	•	•	•
Mongolia	•	•
Montenegro		•	•
Netherlands	•	•	•
North Macedonia		•
Norway		•	•
Philippines^[100]	•	•	•
Poland	•	•	•
Portugal	•	•	•
Romania
Russia	•	•	•
San Marino	•	•	•
Serbia	•	•	•
Slovakia	•		•
Slovenia	•	•	•
Spain	•	•	•
Sweden	•	•	•
Switzerland	•	•	•
Taiwan^[101]	•	•	•
Tajikistan		•	•
Turkey	•	•	•
Turkmenistan	•	•	•
Ukraine
United Kingdom		•
United States	Unclear
Uzbekistan	•	•	•
Vatican City	•	•	•

Albania[edit]

According to the Criminal Code ofAlbania,defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from40000ALL (c. $350) to one million ALL (c. $8350).^[102]If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $25100).^[103]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.^[104]^[105]

Argentina[edit]

InArgentina,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 30,000pesos.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 three years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd).^[106]

Australia[edit]

Defamation law inAustraliadeveloped primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established inLange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation(1997).^[107]

In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia.^[108]In addition to fi xing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories, the laws made a number of changes to the common law position, including:

Abolishing the distinction between libel and slander.^[109]^: §7^[110]
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.^[110]
The defences against defamation may be negated if there is proof the publication was actuated by malice.^[109]^: §24
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.^[111]

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.^[112]

The law as it currently stands in Australia was summarised in the 2015 case of Duffy v Google byJustice Bluein theSupreme Court of South Australia:^[113]

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.

Defences available to defamation defendants includeabsolute privilege,qualified privilege,justification (truth), honest opinion, publication of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern and triviality.^[46]

Online[edit]

On 10 December 2002, theHigh Court of Australiadelivered judgment in the Internet defamation case ofDow Jones v Gutnick.^[114]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 predatesDow Jones v GutnickisBerezovsky v Michaelsin England.^[115]

Australia's firstTwitterdefamation case to go to trial is believed to beMickle v Farley.The defendant, formerOrange High Schoolstudent Andrew Farley was ordered to pay $105,000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform.^[116]

A more recent case in defamation law wasHockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited[2015], heard in theFederal Court of Australia.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.^[117]

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.^[118]

Azerbaijan[edit]

InAzerbaijan,the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to "500 times the amount ofminimum 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. ^[119]^[120]

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".^[121]

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 admitsproofof 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 herintended race,colour of the skin,ancestry,national originorethnicity,nationality,gender,sexual orientation,marital status,place of birth, age,patrimony,philosophicalorreligious belief,present or future health condition,disability,native language,political belief, physical or genetical characteristic, orsocial origin".^[122]^[123]

Brazil[edit]

InBrazil,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 likebullyingor 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 avigilante.^[124]

Bulgaria[edit]

InBulgaria,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.^[125]

Canada[edit]

Civil[edit]

Quebec[edit]

InQuebec,defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France and is presently established by Chapter III, Title 2 of Book One of theCivil Code of Quebec,which provides that "every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy".^[126]

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.^[127]

Criminal[edit]

TheCriminal Code of Canadaspecifies the following as criminal offences:

Defamatory libel,defined as "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure thereputationof 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 ",^[128]receives the same penalty.^[129]
A "libel known to be false" is anindictable offence,for which the prison term is a maximum of five years.^[130]

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 apolice officer,acorrections officer,or aCrown attorney.^[131]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.^[132]

According to the OSCE 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 toprobationand one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was four years of imprisonment.^[133]

Online[edit]

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.^[134]

In 2011, theSupreme Court of Canadaheld 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.^[135]^[136]

Chile[edit]

InChile,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 amisdemeanor(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).^[137]^[138]

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.^[139]

Article 416 definesinjuriaas "all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt". Article 417 defines broadlyinjurias 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 andheirsof 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.^[140]

China[edit]

Civil[edit]

Based on text fromWikisource:^{[better source needed]}Civil Code of the People's Republic of China,"Book Four" ( "Personality Rights" ).

"Chapter I" ( "General rules" ):

Personality rights: reputation, honour, privacy, dignity (Art. 990)
Protection of personality rights (Arts. 991–993)
Personality rights of the deceased (Art. 994)
Liability for infringement; and requests to stop, restore reputation, offer apology (Arts. 995–1000)

"Chapter V" ( "Rights to Reputation and Rights to Honor" ):

Right to reputation, protection from defamation and insults (Art. 1024)
- Reputation includes moral character, prestige, talent, credit
Liability for fact fabrication, distortion, lack of verification, misrepresentation, insults (Art. 1025)
Verification considerations, source credibility, controversial information, timeliness,public orderandmorals(Art. 1026)
Depictions of real people and events, in literary and artistic works (Art. 1027)
Right to request correction or deletion (Art. 1028)
Right to request correction or deletion, for incorrectcredit reports(Arts. 1029, 1030)
Honorary titles and awards: protection, recording, correction (Art. 1031)

Criminal[edit]

Article 246 of theCriminal Law of the People's Republic of China(Trung Hoa nhân dân nước cộng hoà hình pháp) 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.^[141]

Croatia[edit]

InCroatia,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 thespecific contextis that of ascientific 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 casesprovided thatthe conduct was not aimed at damaging someone's reputation.^[142]

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.^[143] 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".^[144]^[145]

Finland[edit]

In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to theCriminal 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.^[146]^[147]Finnish criminal law has no provisions penalizing the defamation of corporate entities, only of natural persons.

France[edit]

Civil[edit]

While defamation law in most jurisdictions centres on the protection of individuals' dignity or reputation, defamation law inFranceis particularly rooted in protecting the privacy of individuals.^[148]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.^[148]Controversially, damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens, which has achilling effecton criticism of public policy^[149]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:^[150]

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.

Criminal[edit]

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.^[151]The relevant offences of Germany'sCriminal Codeare §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.^[152]

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'scivil rights.Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to six months (Penal Code, Article 365). ^[153]

India[edit]

In India, a defamation case can be filed under eithercriminal laworcivil lawor cyber crime law, together or in sequence.^[154]

According to theConstitution of India,^[155]thefundamental 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 ofcriminaldefamation, "reasonable restrictions" are defined in Section 499 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860.^[97]^[156]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), falseinformation(Section 182), false claims in court (Section 209), falsecriminal 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 theIndian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^[157]defamation is prosecuted only upon a complaint (within six months from the act) (Section 199), and is abailable,non-cognisableand compoundable offence (See: The First Schedule, Classification of Offences).

Ireland[edit]

According to the (revised) Defamation Act 2009,^[98]the last criminal offences (Sections 36‍–‍37, blasphemy) seem to have been repealed. Thestatute of limitationsis 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.^[158]

Israel[edit]

According toDefamation 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 toNIS 50,000to 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 werea querela di partecrimes, that is, the victim had the right of choosing, in any moment, to stop the criminal prosecution by withdrawing thequerela(a formal complaint), or even prosecute the fact only with a civil action with noquerelaand therefore no criminal prosecution at all. Beginning from 15 January 2016, injury is no longer a crime but a tort, while defamation is still considered a crime like before.^[159]

Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed withabuse of poweror with abuse of a profession orart,or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporarybanin the exercise of that profession or art. Therefore, journalists convicted of libel may be banned from exercising their profession.^[160]^[161]Deliberately false accusations of defamation, as with any other crime, lead to the crime ofcalunnia( "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.^[162]

Japan[edit]

TheConstitution of Japan^[163]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.

Civil[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".^[164]An example of a civil defamation case in Japan can be found atJapan civil court finds against ZNTIR President Yositoki (Mitsuo) Hataya and Yoshiaki.

Criminal[edit]

ThePenal Code of Japan^[99](translation from government, but still not official text) seems to prescribe these related offences:

Article 92, "Damage to a Foreign National Flag". Seems relevant to the extent that the wording: "...defiles the national flag or other national emblem of a foreign state for the purpose of insulting the foreign state ", can be construed to include more abstract defiling; translations of the Japanese term (Ô tổn hại,^[165]oson) include 'defacing'.

Article 172, "False Accusations". That is, falsecriminal charges(as incomplaint,indictment,orinformation).

Article 188, "Desecrating Places of Worship; Interference with Religious Service". The Japanese term (Bất kính,^[166]fukei) seems to include any act of 'disrespect' and 'blasphemy' – a standard term; as long as it is performed in a place of worship.

Articles 230 and 230-2, "Defamation" (Danh dự tổn hại,meiyokison). General defamation provision. Where the truth of the allegations is not a factor in determining guilt; but there is "Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest", whereby proving the allegations is allowed as a defence. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint".

Article 231, "Insults" (Vũ nhục,bujoku). General insult provision. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint".

Article 233, "Damage to Credibility; Obstruction of Business". Special provision for damaging the reputation of, or 'confidence' (Tín dụng,^[167]shinnyou) in, the business of another.

For a sample penal defamation case, seePresident of the Yukan Wakayama Jiji v. States,Vol. 23 No. 7 Minshu 1966 (A) 2472,975 (Supreme Court of Japan25 June 1969) – also onWikisource.The defence alleged, among other things, violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that none of the defence's grounds for appeal amounted to lawful grounds for a final appeal. Nevertheless, the court examined the caseex officio,and found procedural illegalities in the lower courts' judgments (regarding the exclusion of evidence from testimony, as hearsay). As a result, the court quashed the conviction on appeal, and remanded the case to a lower court for further proceedings.

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 ispari materiawith 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).^[168]

Netherlands[edit]

In the Netherlands, defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court. Article 167 of book 6 of theCivil Codeholds: "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.^[169]^[170]

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.

Philippines[edit]

Criminal[edit]

According to theRevised Penal Codeof thePhilippines( "Title Thirteen", "Crimes Against Honor" ):^[100]

ARTICLE 353. Definition of Libel. – A libel is a 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.

Malice presumed, even if true; exceptions: private communications in the course of duty, fair reports – without comments – on official proceedings (Art. 354)
Punishment for libel in writing or similar medium (including radio, painting, theatre, cinema): imprisonment, fine, civil action (Art. 355)
Threat to publish libel concerning one's family, for extracting money (Art. 356)
Publication inthe pressof private-life facts – connected to official proceedings – offending virtue, honour, reputation (Art. 357)
Slander – oral defamation (Art. 358)
Slander by deed – "any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person" (Art. 359)
Responsibility for dissemination; same as for authorship (Art. 360)
Conditions for defence of truth: good motives, justifiable ends; not available for allegations of non-criminal activities – unless related to official duties of government employees (Art. 361)
Malicious comments cancel the exceptions of Art. 354 (Art. 362)
Incriminating an innocent person (Art. 363)
Intrigue against honour or reputation (Art. 364)

Online[edit]

In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titledCybercrime 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.^[172]^[173]^[174]As of 30 September 2012^[update],five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by SenatorTeofisto Guingona III.The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.^[175]

Poland[edit]

In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of aconduct that may degradehim inpublic opinionor 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 themedia(Article 212.2).^[176]When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or theirnationality,ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is three years.^[177]

Portugal[edit]

In Portugal, defamation crimes are: "defamation" (article 180 of thePenal 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).^[178]^[179]

Romania[edit]

Since 2014, Romania no longer has defamation laws active.^[180]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

InSaudi Arabia,defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable underterrorismlegislation.^[181]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."^[182]

Singapore[edit]

InSingapore,Division 2 of Part 3 of theProtection from Harassment Act 2014provides 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:^[42]

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.^[61]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".^[42]

South Korea[edit]

InSouth Korea,both true and false statements can be considered defamation.^[183]The penalties increase for false statements. It is also possible for a person to be criminally defamed when they are no longer alive.^[184]

Criminal defamation occurs when a public statement damages the subject's reputation, unless the statement was true and presented solely for thepublic interest.^[184]In addition to criminal law, which allows for imprisonment (up to seven years in case the allegations are false) and monetary fines, one can also sue for damages with civil actions. Generally, criminal actions proceed civil ones with South Korean police as judicial investigators.^{[citation needed]}

Online[edit]

In October 2008, theKorea JoongAng Dailypublished an article on online attacks againstcelebrities,and their potential connection tosuicides in the country.Before the death ofChoi Jin-sil,there were rumours online of a significant loan to the actorAhn Jae-hwan,who killed himself earlier due to debts.U;Neehanged herself, unable to deal with remarks about her physical appearance and surgery.Jeong Da-bincommitted suicide while suffering from depression, later linked to personal attacks about her appearance.Na Hoon-awas falsely rumoured to have been castrated by theyakuza.Byun Jung-soowas falsely reported to have died in a car accident. A professor ofinformationandsocial studiesfrom theSoongsil University,warned how rumours around celebrities can impact their lives, in unexpected and serious ways.^[185]

In January 2009, according to an article inThe Korea Times,aSeoulcourt approved the arrest of online financial commentatorMinerva,for spreading false information. According to the decision, Minerva's online comments affected national credibility negatively. Lawmakers from the rulingGrand National Partyproposed abill,that would allow imprisonment up to three years for online defamation, and would authorize the police to investigate cyber defamation cases without priorcomplaint.^[186]

In September 2015, according to an article inHankook Ilbo,submitted complaints for insults during online games were increasing. Complainants aimed forsettlement money,wasting the investigative capacity of police departments. One person could end up suing 50 others, or more. This led to the emergence of settlement-money hunters, provoking others to insult them, and then demanding compensation. According to statistics from the Cyber Security Bureau of theNational Police Agency,the number of cyber defamation and insult reports was 5,712 in 2010, 8,880 in 2014, and at least 8,488 in 2015. More than half of the complaints for cyber insults were game-related (the article mentionsLeague of Legendsspecifically). Most of the accused were teenagers. Parents often paid settlement fees, ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000South Korean won(US$300–2000 as of 2015), to save their children from gettingcriminal records.^[187]

Former Soviet Union[edit]

In the formerSoviet Union,defamatory insults can "only constitute a criminal offence, not a civil wrong".^[188]

Spain[edit]

In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of thePenal Code) consists of accusing someone of a crime knowing the falsity of the accusation, or with a recklesscontemptfor 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'sdignity,depreciating his reputation or injuring hisself-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.^[189]^[190]

Sweden[edit]

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.^[191]It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue; it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.^[192]^[193]

Article 2 regulatesgrossdefamation (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".^[191]For example, if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths.^[192]Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2.^[191]Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someone's parents as a way to bypass the law.^[192]

Article 3 regulates otherinsulting 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.^[191]While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behaviour.^[192]

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.^[194]

Switzerland[edit]

InSwitzerland,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' worth, according to Article 174-2 of theSwiss 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).^[195]^[196]

On the other hand, defamation is punished only with a maximum monetary penalty of 180 daily penalty units (Article 173–1).^[197]When it comes to a deceased or absent person, thestatute of limitationsis 30 years (after the death).^[198]

Taiwan[edit]

Civil[edit]

According to the Civil Code of theRepublic of China.^[199]

"Part I General Principles", "Chapter II Persons", "Section I Natural Persons":

Personality (and name) infringement; prevention, removal, damages foremotional distress(Arts. 18, 19)

"Part II Obligations", "Chapter I General Provisions"

"Section 1 – Sources of Obligations", "Sub-section 5 Torts":

General: Compensation for damaging the rights of another (Art. 184)
Damage to reputation, credit, privacy, chastity, personality (Art. 195)
- Compensation even if loss is not purely pecuniary
- Measures to restore reputation
Statute of limitations:Two years after injury and tortfeasor known, otherwise ten years from the act (Art. 197)

"Section 3 – Effects Of Obligations", "Sub-section 1 Performance":

Injury to personality of creditor, by debtor's non-performance; compensation (Art. 227-1)

Criminal[edit]

The Criminal Code of theRepublic of China(Trung Hoa dân quốc hình pháp),^[101]under "Chapter 27 Offenses Against Reputation and Credit", lists these articles:

Insults (Art. 309)
Slander and libel as distinct offences, with harsher punishment for libel; truth as a defence – except for private matters (Art. 310)
Defences related to protection of legal interests, reports on public matters, and fair comments (Art. 311)
Insult and defamation of the deceased (Art. 312)
Damage to credibility, with increased penalties when done via the media or the Internet (Art. 313)
Offences only prosecuted uponcomplaint(Art. 314)

Thailand[edit]

Civil[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.^[204]

In practice, defamation law in Thailand has been found by theOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rightsto be facilitatehostile and vexatious litigationby business interests seeking to suppress criticism.^[205]

Criminal[edit]

TheThai Criminal Codeprovides 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.^[206]

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.^[205]

United Kingdom[edit]

The United Kingdom abolished criminal libel on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of theCoroners and Justice Act 2009.^[207]There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchistErrico Malatestawas convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.

UnderEnglish 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 provokebreach of peace,rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamationper se;its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of theLibel Act 1843allowed 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".^[208]

United States[edit]

Criminal[edit]

Less than half ofU.S. stateshave criminal defamation laws, but the applicability of those laws is limited by theFirst Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,and the laws are rarely enforced.^[209]There are no criminal defamation or insult laws at the federal level. According to the Wikipedia article, on the state level, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books:Alabama,Florida,Idaho,Illinois,Kansas,Kentucky,Louisiana,Massachusetts,Michigan,Minnesota,Mississippi,Montana,Nevada,New Hampshire,New Mexico,North Carolina,North Dakota,Oklahoma,South Carolina,Texas,Utah,Virginia,Wisconsin,Puerto RicoandVirgin Islands.In addition,Iowacriminalizes defamation throughcase lawwithout statutorily defining it as a crime.

Noonan v. Staples^[210]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.^[211]The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties.

Online[edit]

In response to the expansion of other jurisdictions' attempts to enforce judgements in cases of trans-border defamation and to a rise in domesticstrategic lawsuits against public participation(SLAPPs) following the rise of the internet, the federal and many state governments 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 theSPEECH Act,which was passed by the111th United States Congressand signed into law by PresidentBarack Obamain 2010.^[212]It is based on the New York State2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act(also known as "Rachel's Law", afterRachel Ehrenfeldwho initiated the state and federal laws).^[213]Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously.

Venezuela[edit]

In March 2016, a civil action for defamation led to imposition of a four-year prison sentence on a newspaper publisher.^[214]

UNESCO reports[edit]

2014[edit]

Global[edit]

As of 2012, defamation, slander, insult andlese-majestylaws, existed across the world. According toARTICLE 19,174 countries retained criminal penalties for defamation, with fulldecriminalizationin 21 countries. TheOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(OSCE) had an ongoing decriminalization campaign.UNESCOalso provided technical assistance to governments on revising legislation, to align with international standards and best practices.^[215]

The use of civil defamation increased, often in lieu of criminal cases, resulting in disproportionatefinesanddamages,particularly against media and journalists critical of governments.Libel tourismenabled powerful individuals to limit critical and dissenting voices by shopping around the world for thejurisdictionsmost likely to approve their defamation suits.^[215]

As of 2011, 47% of countries had laws against blasphemy,apostasyordefamation of religion.According to thePew Research Center,32 had laws or policies prohibiting blasphemy, and 87 had defamation of religion laws.^[215]

Thelegal liabilityofinternet intermediariesgained increasing importance. Private companies could be held responsible foruser-generated contentthat was made accessible through their servers or services, if it was deemed illegal or harmful. Due to uncertain takedown procedures and the lack of legal resources, intermediaries sometimes were excessively compliant withtakedown notices,often outside thelegal systemand with littlerecoursefor the affected content producer. Intermediaries were at times held criminally liable for content posted by a user, when others perceived it violatedprivacyor defamation laws. Such cases indicated an emerging trend ofpreventive censorship,where companies conducted their own monitoring and filtering to avoid possible repercussions. This contributed to a process of privatized censorship, where some governments may rely onprivate-sectorcompanies to regulate online content, outside of electoral accountability and withoutdue process.^[215]

Debate around defamation of religions, and how this impacts the right to free expression, continued to be an issue at a global level. In 2006, UNESCO's executive board adopted a decision on "Respect for freedom of expression and respect forsacred beliefsand values andreligiousandculturalsymbols ". In 2011, theUnited Nations Human Rights Councilmade further calls for strengtheningreligious toleranceand preventinghate speech.Similar resolutions were made in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, 87 governments agreed on the Rabat Plan of Action, for the prohibition of incitement to hatred.^[215]

Africa[edit]

By 2013, at least 19% of the region had decriminalized defamation. In 2010, theAfrican Commission on Human and Peoples' Rightsadopted a resolution, calling onAfrican Union(AU) member countries to repeal criminal defamation or insult laws. In 2012, thePan-African Parliamentpassed a resolution encouraging AU heads of state to sign theDeclaration of Table Mountain,calling for the abolition of insult and criminal defamation laws. Such laws frequently led to the arrest and imprisonment of journalists across the continent. It was signed by two countries. In most cases – criminal or civil – theburden of proofcontinued to be on the defendant, and it was rare to havepublic interestrecognized as a defence. Members of government continued to initiate most such cases. There was a trend towards using civil defamation in lieu of criminal defamation, but with demands for extremely high damages and the potential to bankrupt media outlets – although the courts often dismissed such cases. According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, laws against defamation of religion remained on the books in 13 countries (27%), four countries had laws penalizing apostasy, and two had anti-blasphemy laws.^[216]

Arab region[edit]

All Arab States retained criminal penalties for defamation. Truth was rarely a defence to defamation and libel charges. In 2012,AlgeriaandTunisiapartially decriminalized defamation by eliminating prison terms. According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, sixteen countries (84%) had laws penalizing blasphemy, apostasy and/or defamation of religion. Lese-majesty laws existed in some parts of the region. There were vaguely worded concepts and terms, interpreted narrowly by the judiciary. The number of bloggers imprisoned was rising. Among someGulf Statesin particular,citizen journalistsandsocial mediausers reporting on political matters were arrested. The charges were defamation or insult, typically with respect to heads of state. There was a trend towards trying journalists and bloggers inmilitary courts,particularly during and following theArab Spring;although this was not limited to countries where such uprisings occurred.^[217]

Asia-Pacific[edit]

The majority of countries (86%) had laws imposing criminal penalties for defamation. Six countries decriminalized defamation. Both criminal and civil defamation charges against journalists and media organizations continued. Other legal trends included using charges of terrorism, blasphemy, inciting subversion of state power, acting against the state, and conducting activities to overthrow the state. In 2011, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life found that anti-blasphemy laws existed in eight countries (18%), while 15 (34%) had laws against defamation of religion.^[218]

Central and Eastern Europe[edit]

Four countries inCentral and Eastern Europefully decriminalized defamation. An additional four abolished prison sentences for defamation convictions, although the offence remained in the criminal code.^[219]

At the same time, an emerging trend was using fines andsanctions.Civil defamation cases were increasingly used, as evidenced by the number of civil lawsuits and disproportionate fines against journalists and media critical of governments. In at least four countries, defamation laws were used by public officials, including heads of state, to restrict critical media across all platforms.Mediaandcivil societyincreased pressure on authorities, to stop granting public officials a higher degree of protection against defamation in the media.^[219]

Blasphemy was not a widespread phenomenon in Central and Eastern Europe, whereonly one^{[clarification needed]}country still had such a provision. According to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, 17 countries had laws penalizing religious hate speech.^[219]

Latin America and the Caribbean[edit]

TheSpecial Rapporteur for Freedom of Expressionof theInter-American Commission on Human Rights(IACHR) of theOrganization of American States(OAS), recommended repealing or amending laws that criminalizedesacato,defamation, slander, and libel. Some countries proposed reforming the IACHR, which could have weakened the office of thespecial rapporteur,but the proposal was not adopted by theOAS General Assembly.^[220]

Seven countries, three of which in theCaribbean,fully or partially decriminalized defamation. Another trend was abolishingdesacatolaws, which refer specifically to defamation of public officials. The OAS Special Rapporteur expressed concern over the use ofterrorismortreasonoffences against those who criticize governments.^[220]

Defamation,copyright,and political issues were identified as the principal motives for content removal.^[220]

Western Europe and North America[edit]

Defamation was a criminal offence in the vast majority of countries, occasionally leading to imprisonment or elevated fines. Criminal penalties for defamation remained, but there was a trend towards their repeal. Between 2007 and 2012, 23 of the 27 countries inWestern EuropeandNorth Americaimposed criminal penalties for various exercises of expression (includingcriminal libel,defamation, slander, insult, and lese-majesty laws – but excludingincitement to violence).^[221]

Two countries decriminalized defamation in 2009, followed by another in 2010. In another case, there was no criminal libel at the federal level, and a minority of states still had criminal defamation laws. In general, criminal penalties for libel were imposed rarely, with two notable exceptions.^[221]

According to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, eight countries had blasphemy legislation, though these laws were used infrequently.^[221]

The range of defences available to those accused ofinvasion of privacyor defamation expanded, with growing recognition of the public-interest value ofjournalism.In at least 21 countries, defences to charges of defamation included truth and public interest. This included countries that had at least one truth or public interest defence to criminal or civil defamation (including countries where defence of truth was qualified or limited – for example, to statements of fact as opposed to opinions, or to libel as opposed to insult).^[221]

Civil defamation continued, particularly about content related to the rich and powerful, including public officials andcelebrities.There were a high number of claims, prohibitivelegal costs,and disproportionate damages. This prompted a campaign against what was seen by some asplaintiff-friendlylibel laws in theUnited Kingdom;and that led to reforming the country's defamation law, resulting in theDefamation Act 2013.^[221]

Due to legal protection of speech, and practical and jurisdictional limits on effectiveness of controls, censorship was increasingly carried out by private bodies. Privatized censorship by internet intermediaries involved: (i) the widening range of content considered harmful and justified to block or filter; (ii) inadequate due process andjudicial oversightof decisions to exclude content or to conductsurveillance;and (iii) a lack of transparency regarding blocking and filtering processes (including the relationship between the state and private bodies, in the setting of filters and the exchange ofpersonal data).^[221]

2018[edit]

Global[edit]

As of 2017, at least 130 UNESCO member states retained criminal defamation laws. In 2017, theOSCE Representative on Freedom of the Mediaissued a report^[3]on criminal defamation and anti-blasphemy laws among its member states, which found that defamation was criminalized in nearly three-quarters (42) of the 57 OSCE participating states. Many of the laws pertaining to defamation included specific provisions with harsher punishments for speech or publications critical of heads of state, public officials, state bodies, and the state itself. The report noted that blasphemy and religious insult laws existed in around one third of OSCE participating states; many of these combined blasphemy and/or religious insult with elements of hate speech legislation. A number of countries continued to include harsh punishments for blasphemy and religious insult.^[222]

Countries in every region extended criminal defamation legislation to online content.Cybercrimeandanti-terrorism lawspassed throughout the world;bloggersappeared before courts, with some serving time in prison. Technological advancements strengthened governments' abilities to monitor online content.^[222]

Africa[edit]

Between 2012 and 2017, four AU member states decriminalized defamation. Other national courts defended criminal defamation's place in their constitution [sic]. Regional courts pressured countries to decriminalize defamation. TheECOWAS Court of Justice,which hadjurisdictionover cases pertaining tohuman rightsviolations since 2005, set a precedent with two rulings in favour of cases challenging the criminalization of defamation.^[223]

In thelandmark caseofLohé Issa Konaté v. the Republic of Burkina Faso,theAfrican Court on Human and Peoples' Rightsoverturned the conviction of a journalist, characterizing it as a violation of theAfrican Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights,theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,and the treaty of theEconomic Community of West African States(ECOWAS). The journalist was subjected to censorship, excessive fines, and a lengthy imprisonment for defamation. Following this legally binding decision, the country in question proceeded to amend its laws and pay the journalist compensation.^[222]^[223]

In 2016, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe declared its criminal defamation laws unconstitutional. In 2017, theHigh Court of Kenyadeclared Section 194 (criminal defamation) of the Penal Code unconstitutional.^[223]

Civil society and press freedom organizations lobbied for changes to the penal codes in their respective countries – sometimes successfully. However, even in countries where libel or defamation were explicitly decriminalized, there were often other laws whose broad provisions allowed governments to imprison journalists for a wide range of reasons (cybercrime, anti-terrorism, incitement to violence,national security).^[223]

The majority of countries had defamation laws, that were used to charge and imprison journalists. Media outlets were suspended after publishing reports critical of the government or other political elites.^[223]

Arab region[edit]

Libel, defamation, slander, as well asemergency lawsand anti-terrorism laws, were frequently used as tools of government control on media. Emergency laws often superseded the general law. Defamation laws tended to favour those who could afford costly legal expenses.^[224]

Googletransparency reports^[225]showed that several governments in theArab regionmade requests to remove content (such asYouTubevideos), based on allegations of insulting religion and defaming powerful figures.^[224]

Journalists were predominantly jailed under anti-state laws, with charges ranging from spreading chaos, promoting terrorism, and inciting dissidence, to incitement against the ruling government. Charges for publishing or spreading false news were the next most frequent. Other defamation or religious insult laws were laid against journalists in several cases.^[224]

Asia-Pacific[edit]

Most countries inSouth,Southeast,andEast Asia,had civil and/or criminal defamation laws. Various cases indicated that such laws were used by political interests and powerful elites (individuals and corporations). Cases of online defamation were on the rise.^[226]

One recently enacted defamation law received condemnation, including from theUnited Nations.The law allowed journalists to be jailed if they were found questioningSharialaw or the affairs of the state. From 2014, criminal defamation laws were challenged, both in South and East Asian countries.^[226]

Central and Eastern Europe[edit]

Since 2014, use of criminal defamation and insult laws increased. Newlegal obligationswere imposed onISPsto monitor content, as a matter of national security – particularly in theCommonwealth of Independent States(CIS) sub-region.^[227]

Since 2012, more countries in theSouth-East Europesub-region decriminalized defamation. Of theeight countries^{[clarification needed]},three repealed all general provisions on criminal defamation and insult,four^{[clarification needed]}retained criminal defamation offences but without the possibility of imprisonment, andone^{[clarification needed]}retained imprisonment as a possibility. Defamation of public officials, state bodies, or state institutions was criminalized inone^{[clarification needed]}country. Other forms of criminal offences existed in some countries: insulting public officials, harming the reputation and honour of the head of state, insulting or defaming the state.^[227]

Civil laws to protect the reputation of individuals or their privacy were increasingly used. There was an increase in the number of cases wherepoliticiansturned to the courts, seeking relief for reputational injuries. Civil defamation lawsuits by politicians limited press freedom, in at least one country of the CIS sub-region.^[227]

Latin America and the Caribbean[edit]

There were attempts to pass legislation allowing content removal based on different claims, including defamation and hate speech.Draft billswere proposed, criminalizing online publication of content deemed as hate speech, and allowing the executive to order take downs of such content. Several states tried to pass legislation creating special criminal offences for online content that could damage the reputation and/or honour of a person. As of 2017, none of these bills were approved.^[228]

Public officials throughout the region initiated criminal proceedings against internet users, predominantly against those opposing theruling party.Claims were based on defamation laws, including charges againstmemesparodying political personalities.^[228]

Antigua and Barbuda(in 2015),Jamaica(in 2013), andGrenada(in 2012), abolished criminal libel.Trinidad and Tobagopartially repealed criminal libel in 2014. TheDominican Republicremoved prison sentences for defamation of government bodies and public officials.^[228]

New cybercrime laws were passed in two Caribbean countries. In 2017, one country passed an anti-hate law that was criticized for stifling political debate.^[228]

Western Europe and North America[edit]

Legal developments varied across the region. While criminal defamation and insult laws were repealed in some countries, stronger defamation laws were produced or reintroduced in other countries.^[229]

Incommon lawcountries, criminal defamation laws mostly fell into disuse. In contrast, mostcivil lawcountries in Western Europe retained criminal defamation laws. In several Western European countries, defamation was sanctioned more harshly if it involved a public official. In some instances, heads of state were provided more protection to their reputation and punishments were more severe. Some governments strengthened criminal defamation laws to counter online hate speech orcyberbullying.^[229]

TheEuropean Court of Human Rightshad limited influence inlegal reformsaccording to the court's standards, where (suspended) prison sentences for defamation were considered a violation of Article 10 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.Otherhigh courtshad a mixed record when evaluating criminal defamation and freedom of expression.^[229]

According to the 2017 OSCE report,^[3]criminal defamation laws were in place in at least 21 of the 27 countries in Western Europe and North America. At least 13 states retained statutes penalizing blasphemy or religious insult.^[229]

2022[edit]

Global[edit]

As of 2022, at least 160 countries had criminal defamation laws on the books, down from 166 in 2015. At least 57 laws and regulations across 44 countries were adopted or amended since 2016, containing vague language or disproportionate punishments, threatening onlinefreedom of expressionandpress freedom.^[230]

According to reports provided byMeta,Google,andTwitter,the number of content removal requests received by those platforms fromcourt orders,law enforcement,andexecutivebranches of governments worldwide doubled in the last five years – to a total of approximately 117,000 requests in 2020. Of these companies, only Google published data on the rationale for content removal requests made by governments; that data showed "defamation" and "privacy and security" as the leading justifications.^[230]

Defamation and religions[edit]

Christianity[edit]

Christian religious texts(such as theEpistle of James– full text onWikisource),catechisms(like the one commissioned by theCouncil of Trent– see "The Eighth Commandment"from itsRoman Catechism), andpreachers(likeJean-Baptiste Massillon– see hissermontitled "On evil-speaking"), have argued against expressions (true and false) that can offend others.

Theologianand catechistJoseph Deharbe,inhis interpretation of the Eighth Commandment,gives practical advice to thefaithful:The commandment above all forbids givingfalse evidenceincourt.It is never lawful to tell a lie. In general, forbidden arelies,hypocrisy,detraction, calumny, slander, falsesuspicion,rashjudgment;anything that can injure the honour or character of another. With two exceptions: for the good of the guilty, or when necessary to prevent a greater evil – and then, only withcharitableintentions and without exaggerations.

TheCatholic Encyclopediahas entries for two related concepts, detraction^[231]and slander.^[232]

Defamation and calumny seem to be used as synonyms for slander.

Detraction[edit]

Themortal sinof damaging another's good name, by revealing their faults orcrimes(honestly believed real by the detractor). Contrasted with calumny, where the assertions are knowingly false.

The degree of sinfulness depends on the harm done, based on three things:

The criminality of the thing alleged
The reputation of the detractor'strustworthiness
The dignity oresteemof the victim

A relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station (abishopis given as example) might be a mortal sin. While an offence of considerable magnitude (drunkenness is given as example), attributed to a member of asocial classin which such things frequently happen (asailoris given as example), might constitute only avenial sin.

If the victim has been publiclysentenced,or their misdeeds are alreadynotorious,it islawfulto refer to them – unless the accused havereformed,or their deeds have been forgotten. But this does not apply to particular communities (acollegeormonasteryare given as examples), where it would beunlawfulto publish the fact outside said community. But even if the sin is not public, it may be revealed for thecommon good,or for the benefit of the narrator, listener, or culprit.

The damage from failing to reveal another's sin must be balanced against the evil of defamation [sic]. No more than necessary should be exposed, andfraternal correctionis preferable.Journalistsare allowed to criticize public officials.Historiansmust be able to document the causes and connections of events, and strengthen public conscience.

Those whoabettheprincipal's defamation, are also guilty. Detractors (or theirheirs) must provide restitution. They must restore the victim'sfameand pay themdamages.According to the text, allegations cannot be taken back, reparation methods proposed by theologians are unsatisfactory, and the only way is finding the right occasion for a favourable characterization of the defamed.

Slander[edit]

Defined as attributing fault to another, when the slanderer knows they areinnocent.It combines damaging another's reputation and lying.

According to the text, theologians say that the act of lying might not be grievous in itself, but advise mentioning it inconfessionto determine reparation methods. The important act is injuring a reputation (hencemoralistsdo not consider slander distinct from detraction). The method of injury is negligible.

In a somewhat contradictory opinion, it is stated that there are circumstances where misdeeds can be lawfully exposed, but a lie is intrinsicallyeviland can never be justified.

Slander violates commutative justice, so the perpetrator must makerestitution.Atonementseems achievable byretractingthe false statement, which undoes the injury (even if this requires exposing the perpetrator as a liar). Compensation for the victim's losses may also be required.

Islam[edit]

In a 2018 academic paper,^[233]the author (a law student from theInternational Islamic University of Malaysia) argued for harmonization betweenMalaysian lawsandIslamic legal principles.Article 3of the Constitution declaresIslamas thestate religion.Article 10provides for freedom of speech, with expressly permitted restrictions for defamation-related offences.

First, definitions of defamation from Malaysian and Islamic law are listed. According to the paper, definitions byMuslim scholarscan include: mislead, accuse of adultery, and embarrass or discredit the dignity or honour of another. In theQuran,many more concepts might be included. The author concludes that Islamic definitions are better for classifying defamatory actions.

Second, freedom of speech is compared with teachings ofMuhammad.Mentioned among others are:fragmentation of society,divine retributionby theangelsin theafterlife,secrecy, loyalty, and treachery; dignity and honour are again mentioned. The author concludes that freedom of speech should be practised for the sake of justice, and can be lifted if it causes discomfort or unhealthy relationships in society.

Third, Malaysian laws related to defamation are enumerated. According to the author, there were cases with exorbitantmonetary awards,interference by third parties, and selective actions againstpolitical opposition;having a negative impact on society.

Fourth, the proposal of harmonization is discussed. The author proposes amending Malaysian laws to conform with Islamic legal principles, under the supervision of a specific department. Mentioned are: Islamiccustomary law(Adat), secondary sources of Islamic law (such asUrf), and "other laws" practised by people in various countries; provided that they are in line with Islamic divine law (Maqasid). The author concludes that in the Malaysian context, this proposed harmonization would be justified by Article 3 of the Constitution (with a passing reference to the "supremacy of the Constitution", apparently guaranteed in Article 4).

Finally, the author enumerates proposed steps to bring about thislegal reform.Defamation would include:

Libel and slander
Adultery(zina) andsodomy(liwat)
Acts against honour and dignity that do not fall under the previous category

There would be three types of punishment for defamation:

Criminalhaddpunishments(which category seems to includecorporal,capital,apostasy) – the author mentions 80lashes
Criminaltazirpunishments(lashing, imprisonment, fine, "other" )
Monetary damages

Other proposed measures include:right of reply,order ofretraction,mediation via anombudsman,empowering theHuman Rights Commission of Malaysia,finding ways for people to express their views and opinions, education.

Judaism[edit]

The Jewish Encyclopediahas two articles on the topic: calumny^[234]and slander.^[235]

The two terms seem to be conflated. It is not clear which, if any, corresponds to harmful and true speech, and which to harmful and false speech. Combined with Wikipedia's entry onlashon hara(terms are spelled somewhat differently), it might be deduced that:

calumny, orleshon hara,is true speech that is negative or harmful
slander, or(hotzaat) shem ra,is untrue speech

The Wikipedia article onlashon haraequates it todetraction.And classifies all of slander, defamation, and calumny, as the same – and equal tohotzaat shem ra.

Calumny[edit]

It is described as asin,based on both theBible( "gossip" ) andrabbinic literature(leshon hara,"the evil tongue" ). Intentionally falseaccusationsand also injuriousgossip.Both forbidden in theTorah.Of theTen Commandments,relevant is the ninth (inJudaism):Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

According to the article, the slanderous [sic] tongue ruins the slanderer, the listener, and the maligned. Thedivine presencewill be denied toliars,hypocrites,scoffers,and slanderers. Slander is morally equated toidolatry,adultery,andmurder.

According to the authors, somerabbissawquinsy,leprosy(related toMiriamspeaking ill of Moses),stoning,as deserved punishments. And theMidrashattributes hardships of various figures (such asJoseph,Moses,Elijah,Isaiah) to sins of the tongue.

As forlegal remedies,the article refers to ethical and religious sanctions from the Bible and theTalmud,arguing that thelawcannot repair subtle damage to reputation – with two exceptions. Bringing an evil name upon one'swife(punished with a fine and by disallowingdivorce).Perjury,which would result in the perpetrator receiving same punishment, as the one their false testimony would have brought upon the falsely accused.

The authors conclude that calumny was met withrighteous indignationand penal severity inJewish thought,and this was in accordance with the ethical principle of treating the honour of others as one's own.

Slander[edit]

Defined as "false and malicious defamation" (circular definition) of another's reputation and character, disgracing them in theircommunity.Here, it is distinguished fromleshon haraby being deliberately false. Punishments includefinesanddamages.

According to the authors, theLaw of Mosesprescribedflagellationand monetary compensation for ahusbandwho, without reasonable cause, questioned thevirginityof his newly married wife; and divorce was disallowed (similarly with calumny). The article notes that after the destruction of theTemple in Jerusalem,these laws prescribing fines andcapital punishmentceased.

Rabbinicalenactmentsagainst slander are described as very stringent. Abusive language might have been exempt from anylegal liability,unless it was considered slander (against both the living and the deceased). Fines andexcommunicationwere a possibility. Butfastingandapologyalso seemed to be acceptableatonements.

Notes[edit]

^In some, but not all,civilandmixed lawjurisdictions, the termdelictis 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 incomparative law.For instance, despite the common belief that the term "tort" exclusively refers to civil liability in common law jurisdictions, Wikipedia has articles discussingconflict of tort laws,European tort law,andTort Law in China,only using the termdelictin articles about jurisdictions which specifically use the term to refer to torts (e.g.,Scots Law of DelictandSouth African law of delict). Similarly, the English version of theCivil Code of the People's Republic of China,uses the term "tortfeasor" to refer to individuals who incur civil liability.^[21]
^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 Supreme Court of the United States, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of anopinion privilege.^[40]
^For instance,Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand theFirst Amendment to the United States Constitutionprovide protection forfreedom of expressionwhich courts must take into account in developing the case law regarding defamation
^one famous 1734 case involvingJohn Peter Zengersowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defence against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one ofjury 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.^[72]
^The vast majority of southern African states apply Roman Dutch law with regard to theirlaw of obligations,having adoptedSouth African law(which generally applies Roman Dutchprivate lawdespitepublic lawderiving from English common law) viareception statuteunder 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 theAquilian action

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

^"Defamation".Legal Information Institute.Retrieved27 July2022.
^"Defamation | Definition, Slander vs. Libel, & Facts".Encyclopædia Britannica.Retrieved27 July2022.
^^a ^b ^cScott Griffen (Director of Press Freedom Programmes)(7 March 2017),Barbara Trionfi (Executive Director)(ed.),Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study,Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(Commissioned by theOSCE Representative on Freedom of the MediaDunja Mijatović),retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^bLibel 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 theOSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media), 9 March 2005,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^bOSCE Report 2017,pp. 31–33.
^Digest47. 10. 15. 2.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine
^Digest47. 10. 15. 3–6.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine
^Digest47. 10. 15. 25.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine
^"Book 9, Title 36"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 15 May 2011.Retrieved7 September2010.
^Gates, Jay Paul; Marafioti, Nicole (2014).Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England.Boydell & Brewer. p. 150.ISBN 9781843839187.
^Lassiter, John C. (1978). "Defamation of Peers: The Rise and Decline of the Action forScandalum Magnatum,1497-1773 ".The American Journal of Legal History.22(3): 216–236.doi:10.2307/845182.JSTOR 845182.
^^a ^b"Briefing Note on International and Comparative Defamation Standards"(PDF).Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression. February 2004.Retrieved26 May2022.
^^a ^b"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.Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression. 2021.Retrieved26 May2022.
^"European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols".HR-Net.Archivedfrom the original on 1 January 2024.
^Tjaco Van Den Hout (15 February 2013)."Freedom of Expression and Defamation".Latvijas Ārpolitikas Institūts.Retrieved26 May2022.
^"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.
^"How powerful people use criminal-defamation laws to silence their critics".The Economist.13 July 2017.
^Soraide, Rosario (2022)."The" misuse "of the judicial system to attack freedom of expression, trends, challenges and responses"".UNESCO.
^"General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34)"(PDF).United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.29 July 2011.Retrieved30 August2023.
^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).Retrieved12 August2015.
^John William Salmond (1907).The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries.Stevens and Haynes. p.385.Retrieved15 March2013.english law individual corporation defamation.
^Howard, Sam (15 March 2007)."Defamation of corporate entities in England".Lexology.Retrieved15 March2013.
^
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.Retrieved8 November2010.
^^a ^bBenenson, R (1981)."Trial of john peter zenger for libel".The CQ Researcher.Retrieved8 November2010.
^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.Retrieved4 June2022.{{cite news}}:CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^"Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit".Amarillo: Amarillo. 6 August 1999.Retrieved15 May2013.
^"History of the Workers' Party: 1991 to 2000".Archived fromthe originalon 6 February 2005.Retrieved19 November2021.
^Burton, John (30 September 2008)."Death of Singaporean maverick".Financial Times.Archived fromthe originalon 10 December 2022.Retrieved19 November2021.
^"J. B. Jeyaretnam".Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada.26 March 2012.Archivedfrom the original on 28 September 2018.Retrieved1 April2020.
^Cameron Sim,The Singapore Chill: Political Defamation and the Normalization of a Statist Rule of Law,20Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal319 (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 fromthe originalon 21 May 2013.Retrieved29 June2011.
^Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §425.16
^"Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015".Legislative Assembly of Ontario.Retrieved27 March2020.
^Brown, Mayer (2013)."A4ID Defamation Guide"(PDF).Advocates for International Development. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 9 February 2014.Retrieved14 August2013.
^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.Retrieved31 October2017.
^^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).
^"Legal dictionary".findlaw.Retrieved24 November2006.
^"Legal Terms".legal.org. Archived fromthe originalon 22 April 2008.Retrieved22 October2004.
^^a ^b"Equity and Rights in Society, Defamation Defences".Hobart Community Legal Service Inc.20 March 2018.Retrieved2 March2019.
^"Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges".Digital Media Law Project.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"Is Your Reputation So Bad You Cannot Be Defamed?".Hodgson Russ LLP.9 June 2020.Archivedfrom the original on 30 September 2020.Retrieved7 November2021.
^Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson
^"Dancing With Lawyers".Dancing With Lawyers.Retrieved7 September2010.
^^a ^b ^cBossary, Andrew (3 June 2014)."Defamation Per Se: Be Prepared to Plead (and Prove!) Actual Damages".American Bar Association.Archived fromthe originalon 31 October 2017.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"Defamation".Digital Media Law Project.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"Label of Gay Is No Longer Defamatory, Court Rules".The New York Times.Associated Press. 31 May 2012.Retrieved3 June2012.
^Edward C. Martin."False light".Archived27 February 2008 at theWayback 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 fromthe originalon 18 February 2011.Retrieved8 November2010.
^New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 (1964).
^"Foreword".stylebook.fredericksburg.Archived fromthe originalon 1 March 2021.Retrieved30 March2017.
^Patterson, T (2009).The American Democracy.New York: McGraw-Hill.
^^a ^b"Defamation Act 1957".Singapore Statutes Online.Retrieved25 May2022.
^"Law Document English View".Ontario.ca.24 July 2014.
^Defamation Act 1952
^"Defamation under Law of Torts".LawPage.In.19 October 2020.Retrieved2 January2021.
^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 Swamy2006 (87) DRJ 603.
^Santosh Tewari and Ors V State of U.P. and Anr1996 (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 fromthe originalon 1 October 2011.
^"Pattnaik, Aju John 'Defamation Law in India'2 March 2013".Archived fromthe originalon 23 February 2015.Retrieved16 January2022.
^"The Trial of John Peter Zenger".National Park Service.26 February 2015.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)".Google Scholar.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"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.Retrieved31 October2017.
^"Defamation FAQs".Media Law Resource Center.Archived fromthe originalon 9 September 2021.Retrieved31 October2017.
^Defamation Act 1992New Zealandas 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)
^^a ^b ^cCoe, Peter (March 2021)."An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada".Legal Studies.41(1): 111–129.doi:10.1017/lst.2020.38.ISSN 0261-3875.
^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
^"Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws".Article19.org. Archived fromthe originalon 3 November 2011.Retrieved7 September2010.
^^{[dead link]}ARTICLE 19 statements Archived18 April 2009 at theWayback Machineon criminalised defamation
^Idaho Code § 18-4801 Archived2009-10-01 at theWayback Machine,Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47 Archived2011-07-04 at theWayback Machine,Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510,andNo Place in the Law: The Ignominy of Criminal Libel in American Jurisprudenceby Gregory C. Lisby, 9 Comm. L. & 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.
^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 fromthe originalon 20 January 2013.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation".Assembly of the Council of Europe. 4 October 2007. Archived fromthe originalon 10 July 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.
^^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.Retrieved28 July2023.
^^a ^b"Act No. 3815, s. 1930 (Revised Penal Code of the Philippines)".Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.Archived fromthe originalon 8 June 2023.Retrieved2 September2023.
^^a ^b"Criminal Code of the Republic of China".Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.
^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 fromthe originalon 13 June 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"European Council – Aperçu des legislations nationales en matière de diffamation et d'injure – English version – Section Albania".Coe.int.Retrieved7 September2010.
^(in Spanish)Argentine Penal Code (official text) – Crimes Against Honor(Articles 109 to 117-bis)
^Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company[1997] HCA 25,(1997) 189CLR520,High Court(Australia).
^Dixon, Nicolee (2005)."Research Brief No 2005/14: Uniform Defamation Laws"(PDF).Queensland Parliament.Queensland Parliamentary Library.Retrieved6 September2020.
^^a ^b"Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)".NSW legislation.NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office. 1 January 2006.Retrieved8 September2023.
^^a ^bPearson, Mark (1 July 2007). "A review of Australia's defamation reforms after a year of operation".Australian Journalism Review.29(1).CiteSeerX10.1.1.1030.7304.
^Jack Herman; David Flint."Australian Press Council – Press Law in Australia".Presscouncil.org.au. Archived fromthe originalon 12 November 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.
^Australian Law Reform Commission, 1979."Electronic Frontiers Australia: civil liberties online".Efa.org.au. Archived fromthe originalon 16 April 2021.Retrieved7 September2010.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^Duffy v Google Inc[2015] SASC 170at 158 (27 October 2015),Supreme Court(SA, Australia)
^Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick[2002] HCA 56,(2002) 210CLR575,High Court(Australia).
^"Judgments – Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals)".Parliament of the United Kingdom.8 May 2000.Retrieved7 September2023.
^Whitbourn, Michaela (4 March 2014)."The tweet that cost $105,000".The Sydney Morning Herald.Retrieved2 March2019.
^Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited[2015] FCA 652,Federal Court(Australia).
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Austria".Coe.int.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Azerbaijan".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic (English)".Legislationline.org. Archived fromthe originalon 13 August 2015.Retrieved7 September2010.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 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.Retrieved7 September2010.
^(in Portuguese)Brazilian Penal Code (official text)
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Bulgary".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^Book 1, Title 2of theCivil Code of Quebec
^Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-îles inc.,1994 CanLII 5883,[1994] RJQ 1811 (1 August 1994),Court of Appeal(Quebec, Canada)(in French)
^"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 fromthe originalon 7 March 2017.Retrieved6 March2017.
^"Cyberbullying restaurant owner gets 90 days in jail".CBC. 16 November 2012.Retrieved23 February2021.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 40.
^Karem Tirmandi (12 May 2022)."Canada: Internet Defamation For Businesses And Professionals".Mondaq.Retrieved30 May2022.
^Crookes v. Newton,2011 SCC 47,[2011] 3 SCR 269 (19 October 2011),Supreme Court(Canada)
^"Cyber Libel Updates Archives".McConchie Law Corporation.
^(in Spanish)Chilean Penal Code, Book II(see Articles 412 to 431)
^"IEstudiosPenales.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 Archived20 September 2021 at theWayback Machine,Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Croatia".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"Czech Criminal Code – Law No. 40/2009 Coll., Article 184".Business.center.cz.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Denmark".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 51, item 6.
^"The Criminal Code of Finland (English version)"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 26 October 2021.Retrieved15 February2012.
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Finland".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^^a ^bDominique Mondoloni (June 2014)."Legal Divisions".Index on Censorship.43(2): 84–87.doi:10.1177/0306422014537174.S2CID 147433423.Retrieved25 May2022.
^Index on Censorship (19 August 2013)."France: Strict defamation and privacy laws limit free expression".Retrieved25 May2022.
^Scott Griffen (25 September 2014)."In France, judicial evolution in defamation cases protects work of civil society".International Press Institute. Archived fromthe originalon 3 March 2021.Retrieved25 May2022.
^"Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 14 April 2008.Retrieved7 September2010.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 68, items 6 and 7.
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Greece".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^Swamy, Subramanian (21 September 2004)."Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit".The Hindu.Archived fromthe originalon 22 July 2013.Retrieved28 November2013.
^"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".lawyer.ie.Retrieved19 February2019.
^"Dei delitti contro la persona. Libro II, Titolo XII".AltaLex(in Italian). 22 June 2018.Retrieved27 May2020.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 79, item 8.
^(in Italian)Italian Penal Code,Article 31.
^Buonomo, Giampiero (2001)."Commento alla decisione della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo di ricevibilità del ricorso n. 48898/99".Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online(in Italian). Archived fromthe originalon 11 December 2019.Retrieved17 March2016.
^"Constitution (Japan)".Official Website of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet.Retrieved28 July2023.
^MINPO [Civil Code] art. 723 (Japan)
^"Ô tổn hại".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.
^"Bất kính".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.
^"Tín dụng".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.
^"Delitos de injuria, difamación y calumnia en los códigos penales de México"Archived21 July 2011 at theWayback Machine
^"European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Norway".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^"Norwegian Penal Code (English version)".Legislationline.org. Archived fromthe originalon 24 February 2021.Retrieved7 September2010.
^Frank Lloyd Tiongson (30 January 2012)."Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel".The Manila Times.Archived fromthe originalon 9 May 2013.
^"Lee: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012".Sun*Star – Davao.21 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2012.Retrieved20 September2012.
^Harry Roque Jr. (20 September 2012)."Cybercrime law and freedom of expression".Manila Standard.Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2012.
^"Republic Act No. 10175".Official Gazette.Office of the President of the Philippines. 12 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 9 December 2021.Retrieved22 May2020.
^"Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens".The Daily Tribune.30 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 29 October 2012.
^"European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Poland".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^OSCE Report 2005,p. 117, item 6.
^(in Portuguese)Portuguese Penal Code Archived17 December 2009 at theWayback Machine(articles 180 to 189)
^"Portuguese Penal Code (official version)"(PDF)(in Portuguese).(641 KB)(full text)
^Mona Scărișoreanu,România, printre puținele state europene care au dezincriminat insulta și calomnia Archived1 February 2021 at theWayback Machine,înRomânia Liberă,31 martie 2014; accesat la 5 octombrie 2015.
^"Saudi Arabia passes anti-terror law, banning defamation".Gulf News.17 December 2013.Retrieved30 March2018.
^Alsaafin, Linah (15 July 2015)."Saudi writer arrested for insulting long-dead king".Middle East Eye. Middle East Eye.Retrieved1 June2016.
^Back, Sang Hyun."Problems with Korea's Defamation Law".Korea Economic Institute of America.Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2019.Retrieved22 September2019.
^^a ^bPark, S. Nathan (15 December 2014)."Is South Korea's Criminal Defamation Law Hurting Democracy?".The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved14 January2021.
^Lee Hyun-taek; Park Sun-young (3 October 2008)."Celebrities driven over the edge by online rumors".Korea JoongAng Daily.Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved12 August2023.
^Kang Hyun-kyung (11 January 2009)."Parties Clash Over Freedom Of Expression".The Korea Times.Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved12 August2023.
^정준호 (10 September 2015).욕설 넘치는 온라인게임 '롤'... 모욕죄 고소 난무[An online game full of swear words, 'Roll'... accusation of insult].Hankook Ilbo(in Korean).Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved16 August2023.
^"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.Retrieved7 September2010.
^^a ^b ^c ^dSwedish Penal Code (English version)^{[permanent dead link]}(see Chapter 5)
^^a ^b ^c ^dStröm, E."Om att utsättas för kränkningar på jobbet"Archived30 April 2010 at theWayback Machine(in Swedish) Department of Work Science, University of Gothenburg
^Frigyes, Paul"I väntan på juryn..."Archived26 February 2021 at theWayback MachineJournalisten25 November 2008
^"European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Sweden".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.
^(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)
^"Civil Code (of the Republic of China)".Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan).Retrieved19 August2023.
^"Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text)".Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan).Retrieved5 August2023.
^"No. 509 (" The Defamation Case ")".Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.
^Huang Yu-zhe (26 January 2022)."Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel".Taipei Times.Retrieved4 August2022.
^"Case News on TCC Judgment 112 Hsien-Pan-8 (2023)".Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.
^"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.Retrieved26 May2022.
^"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 & Co. p.480.public benefit.
^"Criminal Defamation Laws in North America".Committee to Protect Journalists.Retrieved31 October2017.
^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.
^Green, Dana."The SPEECH Act Provides Protection Against Foreign Libel Judgments".Litigation News.American Bar Association. Archived fromthe originalon 7 November 2017.Retrieved31 October2017.
^Shapiro, Ari (21 March 2015)."On Libel and the Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways".National Public Radio. Parallels.Retrieved31 October2017.
^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.Retrieved16 March2016.... defamation of a businessman connected to government-owned iron miner Ferrominera Orinoco...
^^a ^b ^c ^d ^eWorld Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 29, 31, 33, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-001201-4,retrieved26 July2023
^World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 8, 24,ISBN 978-92-3-100008-9,retrieved26 July2023
^World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of the Arab region,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9, 30, 31,ISBN 978-92-3-100009-6,retrieved26 July2023
^World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia and the Pacific,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9,ISBN 978-92-3-100010-2,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^cWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9,ISBN 978-92-3-100012-6,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^cWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100013-3,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^fWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 10, 29,ISBN 978-92-3-100018-8,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^cWorld Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: 2017/2018 Global Report,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 38, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-100242-7,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^c ^d ^eWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 6, 8, 9, 48,ISBN 978-92-3-100291-5,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^cWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Arab States, 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 10, 43,ISBN 978-92-3-100297-7,retrieved26 July2023
^"Government requests to remove content".Google Transparency Report.Retrieved1 August2023.
^^a ^bWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia Pacific, 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 7, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100293-9,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^cWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 5, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100294-6,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^c ^dWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 7, 9, 34, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-100295-3,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^b ^c ^dWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 6, 7, 40,ISBN 978-92-3-100296-0,retrieved26 July2023
^^a ^bJournalism Is a Public Good: World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Global Report 2021/2022,Paris:UNESCO,2022, pp. 48, 49, 52,ISBN 978-92-3-100509-1,retrieved26 July2023
^Delany, Joseph Francis (1908)."Detraction".In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
^Delany, Joseph Francis (1912)."Slander".In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
^Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad (September 2018)."Defamation: A comparative study between the Malaysian laws and the Islamic legal principles".ResearchGate.Retrieved5 August2023.
^Kaufmann Kohler; S. Schulman."Calumny".The Jewish Encyclopedia.Retrieved6 August2023.
^Wilhelm Bacher; Judah David Eisenstein."Slander".The Jewish Encyclopedia.Retrieved6 August2023.

Sources[edit]

This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development (2014),29,31,33,39,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa (2014),7,8,24,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia and the Pacific (2014),8,9,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of the Arab region (2014),8,9,30,31,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe (2014),8,9,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean (2014),7,8,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America (2014),7,10,29,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: 2017/2018 Global Report,38,39,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa 2017/2018,9,11,12,51,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia Pacific, 2017/2018,7,8,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Arab States, 2017/2018,10,43,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe 2017/2018,5,8,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean 2017/2018,7,9,34,39,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromWorld trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America 2017/2018,6,7,40,UNESCO.
This article incorporates text from afree contentwork. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken fromJournalism Is a Public Good: World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Global Report 2021/2022,48,49,52,UNESCO.

External links[edit]

DefamationatCurlie

[22] In some, but not all,civilandmixed lawjurisdictions, the termdelictis 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 incomparative law.For instance, despite the common belief that the term "tort" exclusively refers to civil liability in common law jurisdictions, Wikipedia has articles discussingconflict of tort laws,European tort law,andTort Law in China,only using the termdelictin articles about jurisdictions which specifically use the term to refer to torts (e.g.,Scots Law of DelictandSouth African law of delict). Similarly, the English version of theCivil Code of the People's Republic of China,uses the term "tortfeasor" to refer to individuals who incur civil liability.^[21]

[29] In recent times, internet publications such as defamatory comments on social media can also constitute libel

[43] 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 Supreme Court of the United States, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of anopinion privilege.^[40]

[57] For instance,Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand theFirst Amendment to the United States Constitutionprovide protection forfreedom of expressionwhich courts must take into account in developing the case law regarding defamation

[77] us 1734 case involvingJohn Peter Zengersowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defence against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one ofjury 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.^[72]

[89] The vast majority of southern African states apply Roman Dutch law with regard to theirlaw of obligations,having adoptedSouth African law(which generally applies Roman Dutchprivate lawdespitepublic lawderiving from English common law) viareception statuteunder colonial rule

[90] 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 theAquilian action

[1] "Defamation".Legal Information Institute.Retrieved27 July2022.

[2] "Defamation | Definition, Slander vs. Libel, & Facts".Encyclopædia Britannica.Retrieved27 July2022.

[OSCE_Report_2017-3] Scott Griffen (Director of Press Freedom Programmes)(7 March 2017),Barbara Trionfi (Executive Director)(ed.),Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study,Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(Commissioned by theOSCE Representative on Freedom of the MediaDunja Mijatović),retrieved26 July2023

[OSCE_Report_2005-4] 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 theOSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media), 9 March 2005,retrieved26 July2023

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report201731–33-5] OSCE Report 2017,pp. 31–33.

[6] Digest47. 10. 15. 2.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine

[7] Digest47. 10. 15. 3–6.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine

[8] Digest47. 10. 15. 25.Archived7 December 2009 at theWayback Machine

[9] "Book 9, Title 36"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 15 May 2011.Retrieved7 September2010.

[10] Gates, Jay Paul; Marafioti, Nicole (2014).Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England.Boydell & Brewer. p. 150.ISBN 9781843839187.

[11] Lassiter, John C. (1978). "Defamation of Peers: The Rise and Decline of the Action forScandalum Magnatum,1497-1773 ".The American Journal of Legal History.22(3): 216–236.doi:10.2307/845182.JSTOR 845182.

[article19-12] "Briefing Note on International and Comparative Defamation Standards"(PDF).Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression. February 2004.Retrieved26 May2022.

[article19OHCHR-13] "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.Article 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression. 2021.Retrieved26 May2022.

[14] "European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols".HR-Net.Archivedfrom the original on 1 January 2024.

[15] Tjaco Van Den Hout (15 February 2013)."Freedom of Expression and Defamation".Latvijas Ārpolitikas Institūts.Retrieved26 May2022.

[16] "Chapter 2: Bill of Rights".Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, as amended.Government Printer. 1996 – via Wikisource.

[17] "The Constitution of Kenya"– via Wikisource.

[18] "How powerful people use criminal-defamation laws to silence their critics".The Economist.13 July 2017.

[19] Soraide, Rosario (2022)."The" misuse "of the judicial system to attack freedom of expression, trends, challenges and responses"".UNESCO.

[20] "General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34)"(PDF).United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.29 July 2011.Retrieved30 August2023.

[CCPRC1VIII-21] Congress, National People's."Civil Code of the People's Republic of China"– via Wikisource.

[indiana1-23] 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).Retrieved12 August2015.

[google1-24] John William Salmond (1907).The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries.Stevens and Haynes. p.385.Retrieved15 March2013.english law individual corporation defamation.

[lexology1-25] Howard, Sam (15 March 2007)."Defamation of corporate entities in England".Lexology.Retrieved15 March2013.

[26] 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".

[33] 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."

[34] 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')."

[35] 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."

[36] 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".

[27] 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."

[28] "Libel".2010.Retrieved8 November2010.

[auto-30] Benenson, R (1981)."Trial of john peter zenger for libel".The CQ Researcher.Retrieved8 November2010.

[31] 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.Retrieved4 June2022.{{cite news}}:CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

[32] "Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit".Amarillo: Amarillo. 6 August 1999.Retrieved15 May2013.

[WP_-_1991_to_2000-33] "History of the Workers' Party: 1991 to 2000".Archived fromthe originalon 6 February 2005.Retrieved19 November2021.

[Death_of_Singaporean_maverick-34] Burton, John (30 September 2008)."Death of Singaporean maverick".Financial Times.Archived fromthe originalon 10 December 2022.Retrieved19 November2021.

[Lawyers'_Rights_Watch_Canada-35] "J. B. Jeyaretnam".Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada.26 March 2012.Archivedfrom the original on 28 September 2018.Retrieved1 April2020.

[36] Cameron Sim,The Singapore Chill: Political Defamation and the Normalization of a Statist Rule of Law,20Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal319 (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

[onthemedia_01-38] Rafsanjani, Nazanin (2 April 2010)."SLAPP Back: Transcript".On The Media.WNYC(National Public Radio,PBS). Archived fromthe originalon 21 May 2013.Retrieved29 June2011.

[39] Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §425.16

[40] "Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015".Legislative Assembly of Ontario.Retrieved27 March2020.

[41] Brown, Mayer (2013)."A4ID Defamation Guide"(PDF).Advocates for International Development. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 9 February 2014.Retrieved14 August2013.

[42] Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,497 U.S. 1 (1990)

[44] 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.Retrieved31 October2017.

[PHA2014-45] "Protection from Harassment Act 2014 - Singapore Statutes Online".sso.agc.gov.sg.^{[permanent dead link]}

[46] Lathan v. Journal Co.,30 Wis.2d 146, 158, 140 N.W.2d 417, 423 (1966).

[47] "Legal dictionary".findlaw.Retrieved24 November2006.

[48] "Legal Terms".legal.org. Archived fromthe originalon 22 April 2008.Retrieved22 October2004.

[hobartlegal.org.au-49] "Equity and Rights in Society, Defamation Defences".Hobart Community Legal Service Inc.20 March 2018.Retrieved2 March2019.

[50] "Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges".Digital Media Law Project.Retrieved31 October2017.

[51] "Is Your Reputation So Bad You Cannot Be Defamed?".Hodgson Russ LLP.9 June 2020.Archivedfrom the original on 30 September 2020.Retrieved7 November2021.

[52] Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

[53] "Dancing With Lawyers".Dancing With Lawyers.Retrieved7 September2010.

[defperse-54] Bossary, Andrew (3 June 2014)."Defamation Per Se: Be Prepared to Plead (and Prove!) Actual Damages".American Bar Association.Archived fromthe originalon 31 October 2017.Retrieved31 October2017.

[55] "Defamation".Digital Media Law Project.Retrieved31 October2017.

[NYGayRuling-56] "Label of Gay Is No Longer Defamatory, Court Rules".The New York Times.Associated Press. 31 May 2012.Retrieved3 June2012.

[martin-58] Edward C. Martin."False light".Archived27 February 2008 at theWayback Machine.Cumberland School of Law,Samford University

[59] 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1–546

[60] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)

[61] Sexton, Kevin (2010)."Us political systems".Archived fromthe originalon 18 February 2011.Retrieved8 November2010.

[62] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 (1964).

[63] "Foreword".stylebook.fredericksburg.Archived fromthe originalon 1 March 2021.Retrieved30 March2017.

[64] Patterson, T (2009).The American Democracy.New York: McGraw-Hill.

[DA1957-65] "Defamation Act 1957".Singapore Statutes Online.Retrieved25 May2022.

[66] "Law Document English View".Ontario.ca.24 July 2014.

[67] Defamation Act 1952

[68] "Defamation under Law of Torts".LawPage.In.19 October 2020.Retrieved2 January2021.

[69] Pukhraj v State of Rajasthan[1973] SCC (Cri) 944.

[70] Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr v Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and Ors.(1970) 72 BOMLR 94.

[71] Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy2006 (87) DRJ 603.

[72] Santosh Tewari and Ors V State of U.P. and Anr1996 (20) ACR 808.

[73] Defamation Act, 1952 (England).

[analysis-74] Ayesha (6 October 2010),The Tort of Defamation: An Analysis of the Law in India and the United Kingdom,archived fromthe originalon 1 October 2011.

[75] "Pattnaik, Aju John 'Defamation Law in India'2 March 2013".Archived fromthe originalon 23 February 2015.Retrieved16 January2022.

[76] "The Trial of John Peter Zenger".National Park Service.26 February 2015.Retrieved31 October2017.

[78] "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)".Google Scholar.Retrieved31 October2017.

[79] "Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)".Google Scholar.

[80] "Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)".Google Scholar.

[81] "Court Cases".Defamation and the Internet.Retrieved31 October2017.

[82] "Defamation FAQs".Media Law Resource Center.Archived fromthe originalon 9 September 2021.Retrieved31 October2017.

[83] Defamation Act 1992New Zealandas at 1 March 2017

[84] Murphy v. LaMarsh(1970), 73 W.W.R. 114

[85] Grant v. Torstar Corp.,2009 SCC 61,[2009] 3 SCR 640 (22 December 2009),Supreme Court(Canada)

[86] Astley v. Verdun,2011 ONSC 3651(14 June 2011),Superior Court of Justice(Ontario, Canada)

[87] Farallon Mining Ltd. v. Arnold,2011 BCSC 1532(10 November 2011),Supreme Court(British Columbia, Canada)

[:0-88] Coe, Peter (March 2021)."An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada".Legal Studies.41(1): 111–129.doi:10.1017/lst.2020.38.ISSN 0261-3875.

[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] "Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws".Article19.org. Archived fromthe originalon 3 November 2011.Retrieved7 September2010.

[97] {[dead link]}ARTICLE 19 statements Archived18 April 2009 at theWayback Machineon criminalised defamation

[98] Idaho Code § 18-4801 Archived2009-10-01 at theWayback Machine,Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47 Archived2011-07-04 at theWayback Machine,Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510,andNo Place in the Law: The Ignominy of Criminal Libel in American Jurisprudenceby Gregory C. Lisby, 9 Comm. L. & Pol'y 433 footnote 386.

[99] R v Orme and Nutt,1700

[100] King v. Osborne,1732

[:2-101] Kallgren, Edward (1953). "Group Libel".California Law Review.41(2): 290–299.doi:10.2307/3478081.JSTOR 3478081.

[102] 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 fromthe originalon 20 January 2013.Retrieved7 September2010.

[103] "PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation".Assembly of the Council of Europe. 4 October 2007. Archived fromthe originalon 10 July 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.

[India_Penal_Code-104] "Penal Code (India)".National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India).

[Ireland_Defamation_Act_2009-105] "Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland)".Law Reform Commission of Ireland.

[Japan_Penal_Code-106] "Penal Code (Japan)".Japanese Law Translation Database System.Retrieved28 July2023.

[Philippines_Penal_Code-107] "Act No. 3815, s. 1930 (Revised Penal Code of the Philippines)".Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.Archived fromthe originalon 8 June 2023.Retrieved2 September2023.

[Taiwan_Penal_Code-108] "Criminal Code of the Republic of China".Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.

[109] Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 1

[110] Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 2

[111] "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania – English version".Legislationline.org. Archived fromthe originalon 13 June 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.

[112] "European Council – Aperçu des legislations nationales en matière de diffamation et d'injure – English version – Section Albania".Coe.int.Retrieved7 September2010.

[113] (in Spanish)Argentine Penal Code (official text) – Crimes Against Honor(Articles 109 to 117-bis)

[114] Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company[1997] HCA 25,(1997) 189CLR520,High Court(Australia).

[115] Dixon, Nicolee (2005)."Research Brief No 2005/14: Uniform Defamation Laws"(PDF).Queensland Parliament.Queensland Parliamentary Library.Retrieved6 September2020.

[Defamation_Act_2005_No_77_(NSW)-116] "Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)".NSW legislation.NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office. 1 January 2006.Retrieved8 September2023.

[mpearson-117] Pearson, Mark (1 July 2007). "A review of Australia's defamation reforms after a year of operation".Australian Journalism Review.29(1).CiteSeerX10.1.1.1030.7304.

[118] Jack Herman; David Flint."Australian Press Council – Press Law in Australia".Presscouncil.org.au. Archived fromthe originalon 12 November 2010.Retrieved7 September2010.

[119] Australian Law Reform Commission, 1979."Electronic Frontiers Australia: civil liberties online".Efa.org.au. Archived fromthe originalon 16 April 2021.Retrieved7 September2010.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[Duffy_v_Google-120] Duffy v Google Inc[2015] SASC 170at 158 (27 October 2015),Supreme Court(SA, Australia)

[121] Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick[2002] HCA 56,(2002) 210CLR575,High Court(Australia).

[122] "Judgments – Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals)".Parliament of the United Kingdom.8 May 2000.Retrieved7 September2023.

[123] Whitbourn, Michaela (4 March 2014)."The tweet that cost $105,000".The Sydney Morning Herald.Retrieved2 March2019.

[124] Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited[2015] FCA 652,Federal Court(Australia).

[125] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Austria".Coe.int.Retrieved7 September2010.

[126] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Azerbaijan".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[127] "Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic (English)".Legislationline.org. Archived fromthe originalon 13 August 2015.Retrieved7 September2010.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report200519-128] OSCE Report 2005,p. 19.

[129] (in French)Belgian Penal Code – Crimes against honour(see Articles 443 to 453-bis)

[130] "European Council – Laws on Defamation – Section Belgium (French)".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[131] (in Portuguese)Brazilian Penal Code (official text)

[132] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Bulgary".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[133] Book 1, Title 2of theCivil Code of Quebec

[134] Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-îles inc.,1994 CanLII 5883,[1994] RJQ 1811 (1 August 1994),Court of Appeal(Quebec, Canada)(in French)

[135] "s. 298".Criminal Code (Canada).

[136] "s. 301".Criminal Code (Canada).

[137] "s. 300".Criminal Code (Canada).

[138] Mann, Arshy (29 September 2014)."The trouble with criminal speech".Canadian Lawyer.Archived fromthe originalon 7 March 2017.Retrieved6 March2017.

[139] "Cyberbullying restaurant owner gets 90 days in jail".CBC. 16 November 2012.Retrieved23 February2021.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report200540-140] OSCE Report 2005,p. 40.

[141] Karem Tirmandi (12 May 2022)."Canada: Internet Defamation For Businesses And Professionals".Mondaq.Retrieved30 May2022.

[142] Crookes v. Newton,2011 SCC 47,[2011] 3 SCR 269 (19 October 2011),Supreme Court(Canada)

[143] "Cyber Libel Updates Archives".McConchie Law Corporation.

[144] (in Spanish)Chilean Penal Code, Book II(see Articles 412 to 431)

[145] "IEstudiosPenales.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 Archived20 September 2021 at theWayback Machine,Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

[149] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Croatia".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[150] "Czech Criminal Code – Law No. 40/2009 Coll., Article 184".Business.center.cz.Retrieved7 September2010.

[151] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Denmark".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report200551item_6-152] OSCE Report 2005,p. 51, item 6.

[153] "The Criminal Code of Finland (English version)"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 26 October 2021.Retrieved15 February2012.

[154] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Finland".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[LD-155] Dominique Mondoloni (June 2014)."Legal Divisions".Index on Censorship.43(2): 84–87.doi:10.1177/0306422014537174.S2CID 147433423.Retrieved25 May2022.

[156] Index on Censorship (19 August 2013)."France: Strict defamation and privacy laws limit free expression".Retrieved25 May2022.

[157] Scott Griffen (25 September 2014)."In France, judicial evolution in defamation cases protects work of civil society".International Press Institute. Archived fromthe originalon 3 March 2021.Retrieved25 May2022.

[158] "Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 14 April 2008.Retrieved7 September2010.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report200568items_6_and_7-159] OSCE Report 2005,p. 68, items 6 and 7.

[160] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Greece".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[Defamation_litigation:_a_survivor's_kit-161] Swamy, Subramanian (21 September 2004)."Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit".The Hindu.Archived fromthe originalon 22 July 2013.Retrieved28 November2013.

[India_Constitution-162] "Constitution (India)".Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.

[163] Defamation – Indian Penal Code, 1860

[India_Criminal_Procedure_Code-164] "Criminal Procedure Code (India)".National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India).

[165] Wood, Kieron."Defamation Law in Ireland".lawyer.ie.Retrieved19 February2019.

[166] "Dei delitti contro la persona. Libro II, Titolo XII".AltaLex(in Italian). 22 June 2018.Retrieved27 May2020.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report200579item_8-167] OSCE Report 2005,p. 79, item 8.

[168] (in Italian)Italian Penal Code,Article 31.

[169] Buonomo, Giampiero (2001)."Commento alla decisione della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo di ricevibilità del ricorso n. 48898/99".Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online(in Italian). Archived fromthe originalon 11 December 2019.Retrieved17 March2016.

[Japan_Constitution-170] "Constitution (Japan)".Official Website of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet.Retrieved28 July2023.

[171] MINPO [Civil Code] art. 723 (Japan)

[172] "Ô tổn hại".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.

[173] "Bất kính".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.

[174] "Tín dụng".Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary.Retrieved28 July2023.

[175] "Delitos de injuria, difamación y calumnia en los códigos penales de México"Archived21 July 2011 at theWayback Machine

[176] "European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Norway".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[177] "Norwegian Penal Code (English version)".Legislationline.org. Archived fromthe originalon 24 February 2021.Retrieved7 September2010.

[178] Frank Lloyd Tiongson (30 January 2012)."Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel".The Manila Times.Archived fromthe originalon 9 May 2013.

[179] "Lee: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012".Sun*Star – Davao.21 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2012.Retrieved20 September2012.

[180] Harry Roque Jr. (20 September 2012)."Cybercrime law and freedom of expression".Manila Standard.Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2012.

[181] "Republic Act No. 10175".Official Gazette.Office of the President of the Philippines. 12 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 9 December 2021.Retrieved22 May2020.

[182] "Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens".The Daily Tribune.30 September 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 29 October 2012.

[183] "European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Poland".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[FOOTNOTEOSCE_Report2005117item_6-184] OSCE Report 2005,p. 117, item 6.

[185] (in Portuguese)Portuguese Penal Code Archived17 December 2009 at theWayback Machine(articles 180 to 189)

[186] "Portuguese Penal Code (official version)"(PDF)(in Portuguese).(641 KB)(full text)

[187] Mona Scărișoreanu,România, printre puținele state europene care au dezincriminat insulta și calomnia Archived1 February 2021 at theWayback Machine,înRomânia Liberă,31 martie 2014; accesat la 5 octombrie 2015.

[188] "Saudi Arabia passes anti-terror law, banning defamation".Gulf News.17 December 2013.Retrieved30 March2018.

[Saudi_writer_arrested-189] Alsaafin, Linah (15 July 2015)."Saudi writer arrested for insulting long-dead king".Middle East Eye. Middle East Eye.Retrieved1 June2016.

[190] Back, Sang Hyun."Problems with Korea's Defamation Law".Korea Economic Institute of America.Archived fromthe originalon 22 September 2019.Retrieved22 September2019.

[wsj.com-191] Park, S. Nathan (15 December 2014)."Is South Korea's Criminal Defamation Law Hurting Democracy?".The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved14 January2021.

[192] Lee Hyun-taek; Park Sun-young (3 October 2008)."Celebrities driven over the edge by online rumors".Korea JoongAng Daily.Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved12 August2023.

[193] Kang Hyun-kyung (11 January 2009)."Parties Clash Over Freedom Of Expression".The Korea Times.Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved12 August2023.

[194] 정준호 (10 September 2015).욕설 넘치는 온라인게임 '롤'... 모욕죄 고소 난무[An online game full of swear words, 'Roll'... accusation of insult].Hankook Ilbo(in Korean).Archivedfrom the original on 31 August 2023.Retrieved16 August2023.

[195] "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)

[196] (in Spanish)Penal Code of Spain(Articles 205 to 216)

[197] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Spain".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[swedenlaw-198] Swedish Penal Code (English version)^{[permanent dead link]}(see Chapter 5)

[jobbet-199] Ström, E."Om att utsättas för kränkningar på jobbet"Archived30 April 2010 at theWayback Machine(in Swedish) Department of Work Science, University of Gothenburg

[200] Frigyes, Paul"I väntan på juryn..."Archived26 February 2021 at theWayback MachineJournalisten25 November 2008

[201] "European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Sweden".Council of Europe.Retrieved7 September2010.

[202] (in French)Swiss Penal Code – Calumny(Article 174)

[203] (Swiss criminal code in English[1])

[204] (in French)Swiss Penal Code – Defamation(Article 173)

[205] (in French)Swiss Penal Code – Defamation and calumny against a deceased or absent person(Article 175)

[206] "Civil Code (of the Republic of China)".Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan).Retrieved19 August2023.

[207] "Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text)".Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan).Retrieved5 August2023.

[208] "No. 509 (" The Defamation Case ")".Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.

[209] Huang Yu-zhe (26 January 2022)."Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel".Taipei Times.Retrieved4 August2022.

[210] "Case News on TCC Judgment 112 Hsien-Pan-8 (2023)".Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan).Retrieved4 August2023.

[211] "Civil and Commercial Code: Torts (Section 420-437) – Thailand Law Library".12 February 2015.

[OHCHRThailand-212] "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.Retrieved26 May2022.

[213] "Criminal Code: Defamation (Sections 326–333) – Thailand Law Library".19 March 2015.

[214] "Coroners and Justice Act 2009",legislation.gov.uk,The National Archives,2009 c. 25

[215] Folkard, Henry Coleman (1908).The Law of Slander and Libel.London: Butterworth & Co. p.480.public benefit.

[216] "Criminal Defamation Laws in North America".Committee to Protect Journalists.Retrieved31 October2017.

[217] Noonan v. Staples,556 F. 3d 20(1st Cir. 2009),rehearing denied,561 F.3d 4(1st Cir. 2009); accessed 15 December 2014.

[218] Noonan,n.15.

[219] Green, Dana."The SPEECH Act Provides Protection Against Foreign Libel Judgments".Litigation News.American Bar Association. Archived fromthe originalon 7 November 2017.Retrieved31 October2017.

[220] Shapiro, Ari (21 March 2015)."On Libel and the Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways".National Public Radio. Parallels.Retrieved31 October2017.

[WSJ031216-221] 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.Retrieved16 March2016.... defamation of a businessman connected to government-owned iron miner Ferrominera Orinoco...

[UNESCO_Global_Report_2014-222] World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 29, 31, 33, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-001201-4,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Africa_Report_2014-223] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 8, 24,ISBN 978-92-3-100008-9,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Arab_Region_Report_2014-224] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of the Arab region,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9, 30, 31,ISBN 978-92-3-100009-6,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Asia-Pacific_Report_2014-225] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia and the Pacific,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9,ISBN 978-92-3-100010-2,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Central_and_Eastern_Europe_Report_2014-226] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 8, 9,ISBN 978-92-3-100012-6,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Latin_America_and_Caribbean_Report_2014-227] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100013-3,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Western_Europe_and_North_America_Report_2014-228] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America,Paris:UNESCO,2014, pp. 7, 10, 29,ISBN 978-92-3-100018-8,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Global_Report_2018-229] World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: 2017/2018 Global Report,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 38, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-100242-7,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Africa_Report_2018-230] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Africa 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 6, 8, 9, 48,ISBN 978-92-3-100291-5,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Arab_Region_Report_2018-231] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Arab States, 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 10, 43,ISBN 978-92-3-100297-7,retrieved26 July2023

[232] "Government requests to remove content".Google Transparency Report.Retrieved1 August2023.

[UNESCO_Asia-Pacific_Report_2018-233] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Asia Pacific, 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 7, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100293-9,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Central_and_Eastern_Europe_Report_2018-234] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Central and Eastern Europe 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 5, 8,ISBN 978-92-3-100294-6,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Latin_America_and_Caribbean_Report_2018-235] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Latin America and the Caribbean 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 7, 9, 34, 39,ISBN 978-92-3-100295-3,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Western_Europe_and_North_America_Report_2018-236] World trends in freedom of expression and media development: regional overview of Western Europe and North America 2017/2018,Paris:UNESCO,2018, pp. 6, 7, 40,ISBN 978-92-3-100296-0,retrieved26 July2023

[UNESCO_Global_Report_2022-237] Journalism Is a Public Good: World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Global Report 2021/2022,Paris:UNESCO,2022, pp. 48, 49, 52,ISBN 978-92-3-100509-1,retrieved26 July2023

[238] Delany, Joseph Francis (1908)."Detraction".In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

[239] Delany, Joseph Francis (1912)."Slander".In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

[240] Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad (September 2018)."Defamation: A comparative study between the Malaysian laws and the Islamic legal principles".ResearchGate.Retrieved5 August2023.

[241] Kaufmann Kohler; S. Schulman."Calumny".The Jewish Encyclopedia.Retrieved6 August2023.

[242] Wilhelm Bacher; Judah David Eisenstein."Slander".The Jewish Encyclopedia.Retrieved6 August2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[a]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[b]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[c]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[d]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[e]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[f]

[g]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]