Talk:Defamation/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Defamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613054559/http://legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1565/file/d46a10bcf55b80aae189eb6840b4.htm/preview to http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1565/file/d46a10bcf55b80aae189eb6840b4.htm/preview
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://periodistas.scyma.info/?q=node%2F1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17263

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Defamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830171747/http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-11-40.html to http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-11-40.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515075030/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/Book%209PDF/Book9-36.pdf to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/Book%209PDF/Book9-36.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422071753/http://www.canona650.com/ to http://www.canona650.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150606230712/http://speechandprivacy.com/post/68909405839/what-is-a-libel-proof-plaintiff to http://speechandprivacy.com/post/68909405839/what-is-a-libel-proof-plaintiff
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922014156/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/ to http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029032238/http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens to http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209044821/http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Legal%20Guide_defamation.pdf to http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Legal%20Guide_defamation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112041621/http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html to http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Defamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710235112/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1577.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1577.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928011916/http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ to http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/
 * Added tag to http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Defamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170219034046/http://www.stephens.com.au/StephensLawyersConsultants2196/Page/24043/TheUniformDefamationLaws2006.aspx to http://www.stephens.com.au/StephensLawyersConsultants2196/Page/24043/TheUniformDefamationLaws2006.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is just broken
There is in Wikipedia an article with the title "Absence of Malice". It does NOT bear the title "Absence of Malice (film)". So why shouldn't I be able to navigate SOMEWAY, SOMEHOW, to the article about that film by typing "Absence of Malice" into the slot. Whenever I do that, I get to the article of which this is the talk-page. There is no way to get out of this do-loop, no "for the film named ..." link, no escape to a disambiguation-page. This is the kind of error that could have been fixed automatically by computers checking to see if articles with title "xyz" are not accessible by typing "xyz" into the slot. I got to the article on the film by going to the article on Paul Newman -- something I COULD NOT HAVE DONE if my interest in the article had been, say, finding out who the male lead was. And then you want me to donate my money when you are defeating AUTOMATIC systems that could uncover such malfunctions. That is the subject of my upcoming Wikipedia Article, "Presence Of Malice", the legal doctrine that states that when people could just use computers, not paid human labor, to make things better, and they don't, and they then ask for donations, that is Presence Of Malice. With, as always, my undying love for everything you do,2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

clarity of this lead sentence
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[cites]

That sentence had been in this form: In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)[same cites]. prior to this 'copyedit' and this edit to 'clarify'.

The 2nd edit's insertion of 'must' in the first of the two conjoined predicate phrases confounds interpretation. So, I suggest returning to the 1st form in the ¶ immediately above unless someone has a better idea. Humanengr (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Who can be defamed
I came to see if a country can be defamed and if so in what jurisdictions and could find very little helpful content. Perhaps someone could flesh it out. Shyamal (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some nations criminalize the criticism of the nation or its leadership, and more nations have done so in the past. Fundamentally, that's a speech suppression issue that is typically much more about political repression than truth or falsity, and does not fall within the scope of an article about defamation. Arllaw (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Absence of Malice (the film)
It is not likely that a person who is searching for the film "Absence of Malice" will come to this page. The lower case phrase "absence of malice" redirects to Defamation, which includes a hatnote for the film.

Citogensis re: Libel Proof plaintiffs
I checked the citation on the explanation of the defense "incapable of further defamation".

"Basically, a libel proof plaintiff is a defense used by defendants of a libel suit which states that a person’s general reputation is already so bad as to be impossible to defame further. Here is a more formal definition provided by Wikipedia: A claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant’s position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be “libel-proof”, since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement." I believe this qualifies under WP:CITOGEN, and as such a new, non-circular source should be found. CamAnders (talk)
 * Well, I fixed this, though I feel it's a dubious example of citogensis, since it's only the "formal" definition that's cited to WP. Of course, one could have tagged the informal definition with .  Then again, this is just a definition, and (I would argue) the "definition" is however one wants to define it, at least until you get into a specific context.  The definition of "libel-proof" simply is not a fact, the fact, as such, is whether a person can have a reputation so bad that the plaintiff may be denied standing on that basis.
 * I've run into this issue before, where there's much discussion as to the proper definition of a term, when such discussion is really much ado about nothing. If you know of any Wikipedia policy/guidance that addresses this, please point me at it. Fabrickator (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, thank you for finding a citation that didn't itself cite Wikipedia. CamAnders (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Tow boat
Tow boat 47.25.3.51 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Plea for less frivolity.
I won't try to make any edits at this time, but seeing some recent changes, I logged in to Wikipedia just to write this: Please do not write frivolous advice/opinions on the severity of criminal defamation laws. Reading the recent changes for Japan makes me literally anxious. Especially the 2nd paragraph for the relevant jurisdiction. Based on a single 30-year-old high-level academic document (from the University of Michigan - i.e. from a very safe distance), it seriously downplays the real-life effects of a criminal conviction. Constitutions are all well and fine, but they have little or no relevance in practice, as the more specific laws always override them. You're talking about a jurisdiction where not even hard evidence ("truth") is a defence, and you can get a criminal record for speaking up. There is nothing "honourable" in the whole process, just retaliation. Prosecution is preferred over lawsuits, not because it restores someones reputation and good standing in society (publishing a reply/retraction/apology would be enough for that) - but because it is easy (costs little to no money), and it caters to the instinct of reprisal. It would literally ruin someone's life: criminal record => loss of job, no possibility to find new job, deportation if not native, just off the top of my head. And that for a first offender, i.e. on a suspended sentence / probation. Repeat offenders will serve prison sentences. Anyway, hopefully people won't take this article as a guide, or they may get themselves in some serious, life altering, trouble. DangerousToGoAlone (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I’m mistaken.
I’m afraid I may have scared away an honest editor with my initial reaction. I still believe the source used did not justify the text that was added: either to the preamble, or under the Japanese jurisdiction (and so I would still challenge it, if it appeared there). Maybe it belongs in a different section. My first thoughts would be: under a USA jurisdiction, or under an independent theoretical / comparative law section. In any case, maybe I judged the source too harshly, and it could be an interesting citation to keep around (if somewhat out of date and/or possibly biased / too high level). Just not in a definition / overview section, and also not under Japan (and especially not as a source about the severity of criminal defamation laws, in Japan or anywhere else – those are never “symbolic”). Anyway, I was thinking of inserting it back somewhere myself, but I don’t think I’m qualified at the moment. If someone else knows / can (e.g. the original editor that introduced the source), please do. (I’m talking about this document.) DangerousToGoAlone (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)