Defamation
In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech).
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.
At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which is derived the modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false.
Drawing on the argument of Labeo, he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ("adversus bonos mores huius civitatis") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ("quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret") the person exposed thereto.
[36] As a result, tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions; the California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario's Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff.
[44][45] Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include:[46][47] Media liability or defamation insurance is often purchased by publishers and journalists to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
[50][51][52] Roughly 3/4 of all money spent on claims by liability insurers goes to lawyers and only 1/4 goes to settlements or judgments, according to one estimate from Michelle Worrall Tilton of Media Risk Consultants.
Even though some of what The Times printed was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth".
[89] An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious'[90]—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.
Article 19, a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps[92] 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.
In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) "when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race, colour of the skin, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, age, patrimony, philosophical or religious belief, present or future health condition, disability, native language, political belief, physical or genetical characteristic, or social origin".
[136] 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.
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".
[151] Controversially, damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens, which has a chilling effect on criticism of public policy[152] 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:[153] 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".
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.
No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.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".
[177] In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him "to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity".
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.
Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone's dignity, depreciating his reputation or injuring his self-esteem, and is only applicable if the offence, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong.
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".
[196] In Switzerland, the crime of wilful defamation is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least thirty days' worth, according to Article 174-2 of the Swiss Criminal Code.
[206]In practice, defamation law in Thailand has been found by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to be facilitate hostile and vexatious litigation by business interests seeking to suppress criticism.
American writers and publishers are shielded from the enforcement of offshore libel judgments not compliant under the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010.
In 2012, the Pan-African Parliament passed a resolution encouraging AU heads of state to sign the Declaration of Table Mountain, calling for the abolition of insult and criminal defamation laws.
[222] The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS), recommended repealing or amending laws that criminalize desacato, defamation, slander, and libel.
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).
[227] Google transparency reports[228] showed that several governments in the Arab region made requests to remove content (such as YouTube videos), based on allegations of insulting religion and defaming powerful figures.
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.
As for legal remedies, the article refers to ethical and religious sanctions from the Bible and the Talmud, arguing that the law cannot repair subtle damage to reputation – with two exceptions.
According to the authors, the Law of Moses prescribed flagellation and monetary compensation for a husband who, without reasonable cause, questioned the virginity of his newly married wife; and divorce was disallowed (similarly with calumny).
