Talk:Defamation

Further explanation for the changes in revision: 1095695588
Further explanation for the changes in revision: 1095695588

Cited source discrepancy (may have been caused by portions of text getting moved around?): The cited source is about liability of intermediaries / platforms that host user content. (AFAIK, this is resolved: platforms have no liability, unless formally notified about specific user content and refuse to take the necessary steps.) News article specifically mentions: “child pornography”, “copyright infringement”, “notice and takedown”, “legal safe harbour”. If anything, the news article gives the opposite opinion of what is written in Wikipedia: “Given how easily content can be forced off the internet with claims of defamation, the law creates a significant restriction on free speech.” And goes on to say: “the United States enacted a law 10 years ago that provides broad immunity for intermediaries that host third-party content.” Concluding that: “A similar provision in the Commonwealth countries would protect sites such as P2Pnet, as well as the thousands of ISPs, websites, and bloggers, who are contributing to a robust online dialogue, but today find themselves vulnerable to lawsuits whose primary purpose may be to suppress legitimate speech.” I’m sorry, but the whole paragraph is contrary to the purported source, and reads like thinly veiled opinions. DangerousToGoAlone (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Regressions in the general definition of defamation.
Revisions: 1110220001 1107579214

The rationale for the previous definition, can be seen here and here (Barring Wikipedia style guides, which are beyond me at the moment.) Starting from Cornell's definition: "Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation."
 * With "statement" replaced with the more general "communication" (includes all modes of human-understandable communications: signs (e.g. emoticons), gestures (e.g. hand gestures), etc.).
 * Requires the element of communication "to a third party".
 * Interplays closely with (and not quite possible to separate from): dignity, honour, insult, facts, opinions, etc.

That was the generalization, starting from Cornell's definition, to what can be observed over the whole region covered by the OSCE reports - which is still excluding most of the southern hemisphere (ergo the "additional citations needed" reminders - but see for example the subsection for India). Britannica's definition is by comparison very restrictive, bringing the definition back to what I can only guess is a Core Anglosphere perspective (and then, omitting crucial details): defamation neither pertains solely to "statements", nor solely to "false"hoods. There isn't a valid distinction to be made between legal and non-legal definitions: there are really only legal definitions to speak of - what changes is the amount of technicalities one is willing to include in the definitions. I think the previous definition was much more precise (again, minus appropriate formatting for Wikipedia) - and with minimal added complexity.

Please do check the OSCE documents. Together with the various official government sites / codes / statutes, I consider them the backbone of the sources for this article. The words "dignity", "honour", "facts", "opinions", feature heavily in defamation and insult discussions across most regions - this is the standard jargon of the field (the wiki page for "dignity" also refers to it as a significant concept in law and rights). And if you read a few criminal codes, you’ll see that "defamation" and "insult" go hand in hand (typically consecutive articles, or close to each other in the same subsections). Moreover, reading a few court cases, will reveal a typical mode of prosecution: go for the most severe form of defamation available (typically "aggravated" / "knowingly and maliciously false"), and if that doesn’t stick downgrade to less severe defamation and/or insult. They are overlapping concepts, and are generally considered together. There is ample vagueness and room for interpretation: because these concepts, and laws in general - as most human language constructs -, are notoriously imprecise (and therefore open to all kinds of interpretations and mental gymnastics).

Check the Penal Code of India (links in this article) for example, it has spectacularly specific examples of what would constitute criminal defamation; and not at all in line with (again, I'm guessing) a simplified Core Anglosphere perspective. I've heard of defamation cases (in other jurisdictions) over a laughing emoticon, and over a misplaced apostrophe.

(2) Misinterpreting the source, for the table with country-specific criminal defamation laws.
Revisions: 1121323228

E.g. for UK: Yes criminal blasphemy / religious insult - No custodial sentence. Compare with Ireland: Defamation Act 2009 repealed blasphemy. Same for the rest of the countries. Edit should be reverted.

What the table really needs, is permission from the OSCE to publish it verbatim in Wikipedia (something like this ).

Then add more countries, not covered by OSCE, with references to authoritative sources (i.e. official government sites / codes / statutes / court cases - not random internet blogs or third-party opinion pieces) (something like this and this ).

And keep updating it, as the OSCE and other sources become outdated (something like this ).

(3) Removed valid (necessary) warnings, misidentified as tag bombing.
Revisions: 1113754484

I'm not a Wikipedia editor, therefore I know not the guidelines and preferred styles. I only got involved in this single article, because it was getting out of hand (to the extent that even I, a complete outsider, could see something was wrong). The meaning of the tags was quite relevant, and nothing since has improved the situation much. Maybe it looks like tab bombing or spam; it was the way I found in a hurry, to add warnings for other readers and editors:

For example: Revisions: 1093693680 1094136625 1094275339 1095041473 1095695588 Also the more recent edit, noted above in point (2). There is no telling what other misinterpretations are scattered throughout this article, esp. after the recent extensive edits, that prompted my own involvement. In my opinion, every source should be checked again at this point; at the very least many will be out of date.
 * "This article possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text."
 * "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable."

Just the two OSCE report documents, are repeated multiple times as citations - with different styles and referring to different pages. I tried to merge some, but only those that do not cite specific pages: Revisions: 1096197081 1096268339
 * "This article may contain an excessive number of citations."
 * "This article has an unclear citation style."

And yes, this article is very long. It would take a lot of time and effort to bring it back to shape. But until then, some warnings like those above should feature prominently at the top, to avoid giving readers a very false sense of confidence in the contents of this article.

DangerousToGoAlone (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Evil-speaking" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil-speaking&redirect=no Evil-speaking] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)