Talk:Defamation/Archives/2013

defamation
Parts of this text from 1911encyclopedia.com.

This text is obviously very Britain and US-centric. Could anybody please contribute something more on libel laws in the rest of the world, and their evolution?

Also, it'd be good to include a more detailed description of the star chamber, etc.

Moved Wikipedia-specific issues to a new page entitled Libel -Dachshund The US has earned the right to be chauvinistic, by the continued spilling of blood against terror, by the continuing distribution internationally of its wealth, foreign aid, the majority of monies funding the UN, World Bank, IMF, and countless international organizations devoted to good deeds. It is good that this article is pro-US and generally pro-plaintiff in its approach, and the general effect of the libel laws in the US. THESE PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE GUIDING THE WIKI PROJECT, NOT THE SO-CALLED LEGAL SYSTEMS IN THE OTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD. (Otherwise, how could you give less weight to so-called legal systems in countries such as China?) The US has the strongest tradition of free speech in the world, and since we also invented and developed the internet -- no small accomplishment itself --viva USA-- we rightly have the privilege in this environment especially, of providing more protection to those who want to expose evil, inappropriate behavior, corruption, bad or nasty behavior, arrogant, stupid, or misguided behavior by celebrities, or anyone in the public eye beyond the norm. 71.116.66.201 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so foolish. The U.S. is but one jurisdiction, the internet is pan-jurisdictional. Acts by any government or organisation, e.g. the UN, have no bearing on the impartial reporting on this matter and others on Wikipedia. Why would you wish to deprive yourself of the ability to access information on another countries legal systems? It is senseless internalism that has earned the U.S. some of its less glorious traits; most people in the UK can at least point the U.S. out on a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.5 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is info about libel and slander in a legal system not based on British Common Law. France would have similar laws, thou I have nothing approaching unimpeachable knowledge about present day Code Napoleon in France. The Quebec Civil Code (based on the Napoleonic Code) make libels against the dead actionable by their heirs. The Q.C.C. also provides stronger privacy legislation than virtually any jurisdiction, which can serve the same ends as a libel suit. User:Two16

Out of place and appears latter
In New York Times v Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710 (1964)), the United States Supreme Court changed this traditional feature of the common law with respect to public figures, and ruled that in cases where a public figure was libelled the burden of proof would be on the libeled person (the plaintiff). is under English law. I've removed it as it appears to be referenced later. It is under arts. 35-36 of the Civil Code of Quebec, however, I am not sure that it belongs here as Slander and libel are common law torts, the CCQ has created a separate right here, it is even distinct from the general right under art. 1447 for extracontracual liability which is hhistorically delicts and quasi-delicts. Shouldn't this information go on a page, Privacy law (Quebec)? Alex756

This article should also at least mention the concepts of "veggie libel" (of which there have been a few famous cases in the past decade or so) and "seditious libel". 18.24.0.120 03:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. &#8212; Alex756 04:38, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that someone who actually knows something about the topic will do the writing, since the research required for me to write it is far beyond what I'm willing to put in on a topic I have no special connection with. 18.24.0.120 04:52, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The description of Australian law is inaccurate - Dow Jones v. Gutnick did not profoundly change the law but upheld existing principles. Dow Jones was arguing for a change in the way the law dealt with conflict of laws on the Internet, but the arguement was rejected.

Curious wording
"Laws regulating slander and libel in the United States began to develop even before the American Revolution. In one of the most famous cases, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case by establishing that the truth is an absolute defense against libel charges. Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee."

It says he was "imprisoned", but then that he won his case. This makes little sense to me, unless by "imprisoned" it means "tried" or "sued". 207.69.15.250 15:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think he was imprisioned, then released after trial. DES 17:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it was before the American Revolution, there was no law that said a man could not be imprisoned without trial. Therefore, he could have been imprisoned before he went to trial. JTConroy88 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Denial of bail means you can still be imprisoned without trial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth as a defense
I was reluctant to reverse somebody else's text, especially since law isn't my field, but UK law (along with that of other Commonwealth countries) does NOT require falsehood to establish libel. See e.g.. If anybody has a reference to the contrary, I'll happily revert.

My understanding is that under British law, this avenue of defense requires not only that the statement be true but also that it be in the public interest, or some such - but I'll leave it to somebody better-versed in the law to fill that in.

I also removed 'defamatory' because that was essentially a circular definition. (Especially since I came to this page via redirect from 'defamation' :-) --Calair 23:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, I'm confused by the first sentence under the 'Truth' heading. It says for statements to be defamatory they must be true. Should that say 'untrue'? Or am I misunderstanding a distinction between libelous and defamatory? -- Nojer2 23:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha. User:Johorne just cleared up this section and answered both our questions. -- Nojer2 23:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed Varian text
Removed the following text (part of a user's attempt to infiltrate this case into as many articles as possible...)

"The California Supreme Court in Varian v. Delfino dismissed allegations of defamation as simply derogatory statements."

kmccoy (talk) 08:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dead people
Does anyone know if the family of a dead person can press libel charges (in order to protect the reputation of the dead person)?

If so, can these charges be pressed for an unlimited time after death or is there a limit: e.g. if a person has been dead for 100 years, libel charges cannot be pressed (considered irrelevant and in the past?)

--Henry Hadlow 09:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The common law has historically been that any action in tort is extinguishedd on the death of the claimant, hence the maxim 'better to kill than maim'. However, in most jurisdictions there has been a move to allow some actions to continue after death. I think the action in defamation is very limited and any damages that could be claimed would be severly compromised. Orizon 08:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In English law, no civil action for defamation can be brought in respect of someone who is dead. However, if the publication of defamatory libel of a dead person is likely to cause a breach of the peace, criminal proceedings may be brought against the publisher.


 * it varies by jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, a dead person cannot be defamed because they are not a person anymore, and so you get those tell-all books being released after some celebrity dies. It's cultural: some cultures regard a person's fame or reputation as being a thing-in-itself that endures beyond death (eg: Hercules chose between riches and ease and "immortal fame"). Paul Murray (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, in Poland one may sue over defamation of a deceased family member, as an insult to the memory of a loved one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.239.116 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Wikinews and libel
Has anyone considered the potential of libel action against Wikipedia/Wikinews? It seems to me that Wiki~ grows more high-profile, the potential for legal issues in addition to copyright issues increases. Is this something the legal boffins have considered? If not, should they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2005
 * I believe that information is covered at Libel. --Kgf0 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See Communications Decency Act.Cuthbert11 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is is by no means clear that Wikipedia is an ISP under the Communications Decency Act. Rywhite83 (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

current events question
OK, I have a question prompted by a story I read in today's Times Online. As an American, I have long been aware that British libel laws give much more leeway to the plaintiff and much less to the defendent than ours do; to grossly oversimply the difference, it's that (as I have always heard it) in America "I may have been wrong, but I tried to be responsible in my fact-checking; I wasn't just lying for fun or recklessly; I legitimately thought what I wrote was true and here's why..." is adequeate defense whereas in Britain it isn't. In Britain the best way to win a libel defense is to prove that your claims were true.

Now I read that a businessman has won a libel action against the Times over the word "shabbily." A Times columnist said that the businessman had treated an employee "shabbily"; and as far as I can see in the article, the facts of how the businessman treated that employee weren't under dispute. So my question: surely "shabbily" is a matter of judgement, not of fact. If I tell a falsehood about you (you're a Martian) that's libel; but if all I'm doing is expressing my opinion (you're pompous) how can that be libel? This goes much much much further than I had previously realized British plaintiff-favoring went. Doops | talk 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Expressions of opinion usually come into the category of whether the opinion stated would cause people to "shun" the claimant. It may be a defence that the opinion is clearly justified by the facts of the case, though, by it's nature, the opinion is not a fact. See Miller v Associated Newspapers (2005)EWHC 557(QB). In this case it was held that although the opinions stated were harsh the facts of the case lent them enough support to avoid them being libellous. In other cases the court may decide that an opinion is derogatary but not enough to meet the "shun" test. The most famous case is that of actor William Roache. A newspaper described him as boring and claimed that fellow actors couldn't stand him. Although the court did not find any of the opinions to be true, they did not consider that they would be enough to cause people to shun him. The case you mention seems to be incredibly wrong by any standard - it will be intersting to see if it stands up to appeal.user:badtypist


 * A defendant can claim a defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest. Public interest is quite broadly defined, and an employer's practices in dealing with personnel would probably qualify  (Private Eye frequently comments scathingly on employment matters, for example).  In this case, the employer and employee were the chairman and manager of a well-known football club, and therefore public figures.  To be fair comment, the opinion must be one a reasonable person could hold, based on the known facts.  Here the article was factually inaccurate, albeit in a relatively unimportant detail, but that was enough to invalidate the fair comment defence.  In light of your remarks, it's interesting that |a law firm suggests a possible remedy: "Or Fleet Street can follow the American procedure of “fact checking”, obviously a good idea in principle but one that produces dull newspapers with bland articles." Townmouse (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

defamation laws and democratic rights
This article doesn't emphasise the apparent delicate balance between defamation laws and political rights of free speech, only mentioning it at the end. Singapore, for example, has routine cases where the government prosecutes any rampant political criticism as defamation. -- Natalinasmpf 03:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The defence of free speech seems to be unimpeachable in a modern democratic world. In many cases though the defendants in libel cases are multinational news organisations and the claimant are just ordinary people. Free speech - in terms of getting your views across to millions of people - is not something that is equally or fairly distributed. In effect many defences of free speech come down to a defence of allowing rich and powerful organisations to say what they want about people who have no reciprocal right.
 * That's a good point but you're forgetting unalienable liberty. No one has the authority to make the distinction between people who are in a better position to exploit their rights (in this case rich and powerful organisations) than people who aren't. Only a few people own a television network but being in a privileged position shouldn't mean a violation of your rights, rights transcend class. I concede that the élite should be on a level playing field in terms of getting a message across but making the distinction paves the way for more distinctions since the first distinction was a violation of total free speech anyway (which was the original intention). Every libel case is an infringement of the first amendment unless a referendum is called to change it to "Freedom of speech except when what you're saying is false." --Onias 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add Singapore to the list of countries in this wikipedia article, since a typical characteristic of Singaporian society is that anti-libel laws are often invoked by the Singaporian government (libel laws vs. freedom of speech etc.). I am surprised Singapore is not mentioned.

McDonald's
I notice that there's a sizeable bit on McDonald's (McLibel) case under the 'Burden of Proof section', and although I imagine the case does relate to the article, the text itself does not seem to explain the connection. It does however spend some time repeating the claims that promted the case in the first place. The section sounds as if it's trying to disparage McDonalds, rather than inform the user about the burden of proof. TimTim 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

definition
I've removed the following line from the opening paragraph:
 * Defamation is defined to be the tort or delict of "...publication of a false statement of fact, made with the requisite state of mind, that causes injury".

This is only the american definition, which is very different from most other parts of the world. --PullUpYourSocks 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversal of Burden of Proof
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what "reversal of burden of proof" means. Those who wish to defend systems that employ such reversals, try to make it sound as if the courts are presuming the plaintiff innocent of the statement made of them, so that the burden of proof only appears to be reversed, but is rightly being imposed on the defendant.

That is a complete distortion!

The court is not presuming the plaintiff innocent. It is presuming that the defendant has not presumed the plaintiff innocent.

But you can't do that! You can't legitimately impose a burden of proof on someone else, because you can't read their mind. It is a false argument to equate the court's knowledge of whether the defendant has presumed innocence with whether the defendant has actually presumed innocence.

So the burden of proof is, in fact, being reversed. The defendant must prove that they did not honour the innocence of the plaintiff, whether they actually did or not. They are presumed guilty of not honouring the plaintiff's innocence, which really just amounts to a presumption of guilt of defaming. All this serves to do is make it more likely for plaintiffs to win cases - it does not impose a presumption of innocence on the public as it claims to. 24.68.180.163 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not terrible helpful, I feel, to describe slander as a verbal defamation. Verbal means using words. Both slander and libel will generally (although note AP Herbert's amusing example using signal flags) use words. Oral would be better, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.240.49 (talk)

An easier way to explain the supposed reverse burden of proof is to state what the plaintiff and the defendant are required to prove. The plaintiff only has to prove that the defendant has made a statement which has disparaged his reputation. However, it is a defence for the defendant to prove that the statement is true. Compare, for example, to a prosecution for murder. The prosecution has to prove the that defendant has killed the victim. It is a defence for the defendant to prove that he acted in self defence (if the defendant can't prove this, then he will be convicted).

(The immediately preceding paragraph appears to be an unsigned comment, or part of a comment that was signed in the middle rather than at the end.) I think the problem here is that the whole "Burden of proof on the plaintiff" section definitely needs a rewrite. I may take a stab at it later, but as it is now, it is a mess that needs carefully reworked. In broad outline, the whole focus on a "reversed" burden of proof states the situation poorly. In the US and other similar countries, falsehood is part of the prima facie case for slander or libel, in jurisdictions that follow the UK model, instead, it is an affirmative defense. In either case, the plaintiff has the usual burden of showing the elements of the prima facie case, and the defendant the burden for establishing any affirmative defenses. The presentation of this as a "reversal" of the "usual" burden of proof is confusing and inaccurate: having affirmative defenses which the defendant is required to establish is not in any respect unusual. The entire second paragraph seems to be a confused attempt to rationalize the idea of a reversed burden of proof based on the idea of a presumption of innocence, as best I can tell it ought to be removed utterly unless there is some source to support this particular kind of justification. Cmdicely 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unremovable graffiti?
There seems to be a line of text at the end of the "truth" section that does not appear when the page is pulled up to be edited. Anyone know how to remove this?


 * Is the line of text still there? Or, are you referring to the double "[edit]" buttons at the top of the "Truth" section, instead of the bottom? (they appear to be there because the right-hand graphic pushes the previous section button out of the way).  Or, do you mean there seems to be a line of text at the end of the "truth" section that does appear only when the page is pulled up to be edited?  (Because the citation reference coding text in the editing box is much longer than the editing box, obscuring the section text.)  Or, is this a joke, and you anonymously want to get rid of "Substantial truth"?  (Ha, ha.) Why didn't you leave an example, with more detail?  Who wrote this request and did not sign it, anyway?  Where has my concision gone?  And, why am I chasing ghosts at 4 o'clock in the morning?  I think I am going to sleep.  SalineBrain (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some minor questions/issues

 * 1) The article mixes British and American spelling (defense/defence offense/offence behavior /behaviour. Wp:mos says that either is OK, but that the article should use the same dialect throughout. Barring objections, I will try to make it consistently American English.
 * 2) Why is the Topics in Journalism box included here? It was added without explanation in the  Revision as of 20:48, 5 September 2006 by User:Chivista.  Barring objections, I'll remove the.
 * 3) I note that the box also included in this article uses American english. That will not change if this article goes with British English spellings. -- Boracay Bill 07:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Made the above changes -- Boracay Bill 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--

New California Case on Cyberspeech

Shouldn't there be some reference to the newly decided case in Californa, which rejected a defamation claim involving Internet speech. I will get the citation.

--

Justification of edit of introductory sentence

The preceding introductory sentence was modified by substituting 2 sentences and separating the remainder of the paragraph as a new paragraph. The earlier 1st sentence had 2 flaws:

1. It was structurally incorrect by defining “defamation” as a “right of action” when it really is the wrong which sometimes may be remedied by a right of action. The new sentences clarify this relationship.

2. The scope of defamation was incorrectly limited to reputational harm to individuals. Defamation law also encompasses (at least in some jurisdictions) reputational harm to business entities, groups of people, governments, and nations. Examples include, a business entity: Bose Corporation vs. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (alleged defamation of product of corporation); a group of people: Beauharnais vs. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (criminal law prohibiting defamation of racial or religious groups); a nation: the recent trial of novelist Orhan Pamuk in Turkey under Article 301 of Turkish Criminal Code ("insulting Turkishness") for asserting 1,000,000 Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey early in the last century. I don’t have ready at hand an example of a trial of a dissenter allegedly defaming his or her government, but I believe such occurs in the People’s Republic of China and in many other jurisdictions. The scope of the article should not be limited to defamation law of which we approve, but should encompass defamation law as it exists in various jurisdictions and how it has evolved through history. Ray Glock-Grueneich 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Ray Glock-Grueneich

[I inappropriately labeled the edit discussed immediately above as a "minor edit" because it only involved one sentence. Sorry to mislead. It won't be repeated.]Ray Glock-Grueneich 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

-

I want to respond to the commentator who remarked this entry was "obviously Britain- and US centric" and requested material reflecting the content and history of defamation law in the "rest of the world." Since the "Slander and Libel" article is portrayed as being one of a series of articles on the law of "Tort," which in turn is part of a series on the "Common Law," it is quite understandable that the subject matter would be largely limited to England, the United States, and nations having the Common Law of England in their history.

Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to the criticism and request noted. Acknowledging the value of the article to one trying to learn about this aspect of the Common Law tradition, the problems presented by law attempting to cope with defamation, and the dangers to free speech as a foundation for democracy that are presented in this field, are universal and not limited to nations sharing a Common Law tradition. In my view, it better serves the purpose of Wikipedia as a general encyclopedia for us to strive to make this particular article as universal as possible, and to present particular cases as illustrations of how one particular nation (or historical period within a nation) has approched a problem with univeral implications. The current law and/or legal history of particular nations or groups of nations, such as those with an English Common Law tradition or a tradition of Code Napoleon or Soviet legal orientation, can be addressed in articles focusing on those jurisdictions

My own background is almost exclusively in the law of the United States, and so my contributions generally will reflect this limitation. But I enthusiastically welcome contributions that provide a more catholic perspective. In particular, I would like to see some material dealing with the Turkish experience with Article 301 of their Criminal Code, as an example of a nation enforcing a law prohibiting defamation of a nation. I realize this is a contentious topic sometimes brought into the discussion of the merits of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union. Yet, I think it would be possible for those exercising Wikipedia discipline to present a balanced view on the goals, problems and dangers of the concept of defamation of a nation. And such treatment, in my opinion, belongs in the instant article on "Slander and Libel."

It is my intention to attempt a number of edits which reflect an attempt to make this particular article as general as feasible, while still respecting the good work already contained within it.Ray Glock-Grueneich 22:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

-

Explanation of addition of "product" to list of objects of defamation in opening paragraph.

In my earlier discussion of the addition of "business" I cited the case of Bose Corporation vs Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 US 485 (1984) in support of listing "business." But actually, as noted in the earlier comment, Bose is a case which involves disparagement of a product, rather than the business itself, although such defamation impacts on a business. I will look for another citation to justify the inclusion of "business." Surely there are cases where a business has been accused of improper practices or an uncomplimentary financial condition, which would be a defamation of the business, as distinction from a detraction from one of the products of that business.Ray Glock-Grueneich 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

-

An example of defamation of a business is Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. vs. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 472 U.S. 749 (1985), which involved an erroneous report that a corporation had filed for bankruptcy.Ray Glock-Grueneich 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections
This article looks a bit disordered to me, and could maybe use a cleanup tag. For example; is the section "Defenses" supposed to refer specifically to US law, or is it intended as a general description of defenses found in many jurisdictions? If the former it should be incorporated into the section on US law, if the latter it needs positioning higher up in the article - either way it does not belong in between "Singapore law" and "Australian Law". The section "Defamation per se" also looks like it belongs in the "US Law" section. Aretnap 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

-

I agree with the preceding comment. I am new to Wikipedia culture and protocol and so don't know the implications of a "cleanup tag." (Explanation or reference to explanation welcome.)

I believe that there is and should be recognized a distinction between an article concerning a general subject of law, e.g., defamation, and the treatment of that subject within a particular legal jurisdiction. In my view, the article under discussion, "Slander and Libel" is of the former type, and that all jurisdiction-specific comments should be offered as illustrations rather than a definitive commentary on the subject.

For example, the fact that defamation of government has not been official doctrine in the United States for approximately the last 200 years (since the repeal of the infamous seditious libel law of 1798), there are many jurisdictions that today do take legal action against those who damage the reputation of government, and thus this is a valid aspect of defamation law to discuss in a general article on defamation. The same is true with respect to defamation of a nation. The example I note in an earlier comment is Article 103 of the Criminal Code of Turkey which punishes those who slander "Turkishness."

I am working on a reorganization of parts of this article that I believe will address at least part of the concern expressed in the preceding comment. Currently, I am envisioning the article being organized into 4 or 5 distinct sections.

One section would concern what I call definitional issues. I make a distinction between a failure to meet the definition of defamation and a defense to defamation, even though either strategy may be equally viable to a party trying to defeat a defamation case. For example, if a defendant prevails by demonstrating that the plaintiff was disreputable before the publication complained of, in the strictest sense this is not a "defense" but rather a showing that there was no defamation because there was no harm to reputation. Another example of a definitional issue would be where a jurisdiction requires that the defamation involve a factual claim capable of falsification. In such a jurisdiction the claim that a business is "unfair" is not defamation, because it is a mere statement of opinion or characterization, rather than an assertion capable of falsification. Similarly, parody is not defamation because it is understood not to be an assertion of a factual claim, but rather a form of ridicule that may sting without resort to a claim of factual accuracy.

A second section would be devoted to defenses in the stricter sense of that term. The most notable of these is the defense of truth, which, of course, is not universally and unconditionally recognized. Many American States have historically accepted a defense of truth only when a lack of malice is shown, or where there is also shown sufficient justification for publishing a truth damaging to reputation. In addition, there are a variety of absolute or qualified immunities. These immunities may depend on the institutional context in which the publication occurs, e.g., judicial immunity when made in the course of litigation, or may depend on the person whose reputation is being damaged, e.g., qualified immunity for negligent statements made concerning public officials or public figures, or upon other factors, such as the consent of the person being defamed.

A third section would be devoted to various issues concerning what remedies are available. In the English Common Law tradition there is an important body of law concerning the topics of libel per se and slander per se and the types of monetary damages that may be recovered. American constitutional law has adopted a rule of qualified immunity from punitive damages sought by private persons that is parallel to the immunity provided from even compensatory damages sought by public officials and public figures (The New York Times standard).

In addition to the law applicable to recovery of monetary damages, this third section would also address other remedies. Especially important here is criminal liability. There are also important issues pertaining to defamation law that arise in legal actions seeking injunctive relief. Since the gist of defamation concerns damage to reputation, it would seem in theory at least that declaratory relief helping to restore reputation would be pertinent. Restoration of reputation has been developed most in situations where government defames an individual or business. This last topic is of special interest to me.

The fourth section concerns certain procedural issues that are peculiar, or relatively so, to defamation law. For example, some jurisdictions that recognize truth as a defense to defamation have gone even further to elevate truth as a social value and require the plaintiff to affirmatively prove falsehood as part of the prima facie case.

It is not clear to me whether the history of defamation law should be a fifth section of a general article on defamation, or rather should be relegated to the specific histories of each jurisdiction's treatment of defamation. I suspect the best answer is to do both, trying our best not to be too parochial in the general history.Ray Glock-Grueneich 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with primary source
The criminal libel section states "In European systems, criminal liability for defamation is virtually obsolete by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Yet said article, referenced in footnotes, mentions "the protection of the reputation ... of others" as a possible exemption from free speech. What's the truth of the matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.232.235.211 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not a lawyer, but....

social need" (see the above-mentioned Barthold judgment, Series A no. 90, pp. 24-25, para. 55). The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists (ibid.), but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 36, para. 59). The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" or "penalty" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (art. 10) (ibid.).
 * 1) The Ref'd source, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says, in part: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, [...],  for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, [...]".  This apparently gives the lie to the contention that "In European systems, criminal liability for defamation is virtually obsolete by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
 * 2) Para 39 in the cited decision in Lingens v. Austria says
 * 39. The adjective "necessary", within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2), implies the existence of a "pressing

40. In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, [...]
 * The decision then goes on in succeeding paragraphs to set out a reasoned basis for its decision that Lingens' rights had been violated and that he should be compensated. In this reasoning, the court points out that value-judgements figure strongly in the decision.
 * The above was in the context of European judicial and value systems. I believe that US courts would also held that no libel occurred here, but on different grounds -- those grounds being that the allegedly libeled person was a public figure, that looser constraints on free speech and stricter standards for proving libel apply in the case of libel against public figures, including the need to show actual malice, and that no actual malice had been shown. In the US, a statute declaring "insulting the President" to be a criminal offense would surely be held by the US supreme court to be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
 * Getting back to direct comment, IMHO, the phrase "In European systems, criminal liability for defamation is virtually obsolete" is a POV exaggeration, and should probably be replaced with something like, "The European Court of Human Rights has in some instances placed restrictions on libel laws". -- Boracay Bill 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound more reasonable.
 * Made the change -- Boracay Bill 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slander
If an untrue statement were used to de-mote or fire someone, would it be considered "slander" ie: "you are being demoted for having an inappropriate relationship with...." Would it be slanderous to the party being demoted and to the party being mentioned?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.40.98.10 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Wikipedians don't give legal advice and this question isn't appropriate for here as it's nothing to do with improving the article. Such questions should go at the reference desk Reference desk but since it sounds like you're looking for legal advice you should go somewhere else Nil Einne 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title
Wouldn't a better title for this article be "Defamation"? "Slander and libel" seems awkward and doesn't even really describe the content properly. -Chunky Rice 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The contents of this article have evolved to such a stage that it describes the broad concept of "defamation", rather than solely the English common law roots of slander and libel as separate torts. Whereas slander and libel (where the distinction is still maintained) are both considered forms of defamation, in places where the distinction has been abolished the terms "slander" and "libel" are irrelevant. "Defamation" is the most descriptive title. Thus, I have moved the page to the title "Defamation". - Mark 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany
Apparently, someone thought it necessary to use this article to have a good rant against Germany. They quote some official figures, only to then interpret them in a VERY slanted (dare I say libelous??) way. Or maybe they just copied another run-of-the-mill 'proof that Germany is evil' article straight from the Daily Mail or something... It's amusing enough, but unfortunately it's 99% rubbish and has no place in an encyclopedic article.

As the provided figures hint, German law categorizes a very wide spectrum of offences under 'insult' (including, for example, some forms of sexual harassment). This does not necessarily mean that more things are punishable in Germany than elsewhere; it simply means that Germany has concentrated many offences under one 'umbrella', whereas other countries may use a variety of headings to categorize just as many, or more, offences. And all of this certainly does in no way constitute a "massive attack on free speech".

I'm not bothered enough to engage in an edit war over this, but if someone could rid the section of its rubbish and make it into a proper encyclopedic entry this would be highly appreciated.

BTW I am not German myself, so don't bother scolding me over any of this. Vlaflipje1982 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vlaflipje1982, I agree. Violation of | good design principles in scientific  Information Visualization provide the objective evidence to show that if this article is not a rant, we must on good faith assume the author (Peter Briody), to be ignorant of good visual design principles at 11:48, on 28 November 2007. (Is this too insulting?) The paragraphs


 * "The latest statistics published by the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) [27]show a steady upwards trend: in 1927 it was about 50,000; 1998 about 130,000 and 2006 about 187,000 cases recorded. As far as can be determined, Germany leads Europe in the implementation of these laws.


 * Germany has been a major protagonist of Insult laws since the turn of the last century. According to Reichskriminalstatistik of the year 1927 there were 50.000 cases of "insult" tried. In the year 2006, according to the Bundeskriminalamt it was nearly 187.000 with an upwards trend. The statistics 1927-2006 are shown in the table below:",


 * [[Image:InsultStatis.png|550px|thumb|left|The Statistics of the total Police Investigations for 1927 to 2006 [[Germany]]]]


 * accompany a graph that violates good design principles. The 1927 statistic is incorporated as the first bar in the graph, followed directly by ten more bars from the last ten years, making the intervening years appear invisible, and implying to the eye that 1927 is 1996, or that the intervening years 1928-1996 follow the same trend.  The statistics 1927-2006 are NOT "shown in the table below", and it is a GRAPH, not a table.  The statistics for 1997(not 1928-1996), to 2006, are shown in the bar graph, with a misleading and irrelevant bar for 1927.


 * This section needs improvement by someone interested in the subject matter. SalineBrain (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also section
Can this be reduced per WP:GTL? I removed the recently added racial antisemitism (sp) since this opens the section up to many, many more additions. Anyways, thanks --Tom 18:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

no source
the sentence "Some U.S. statutes of uncertain constitutionality preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. " contains no source for scholars who believe these statutes to be potentially unconstitutional. the opinion of whoever originally wrote that sentence is, of course, irrelevant. i'll remove the words "of uncertain constitutioality" unless someone sources them. thanks. SJMNY (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the words "of uncertain constitutionality" have now been removed. if you wish to restore it do so with a source, thanks.  SJMNY (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Which template should be on this page - the old sider or the on eon the footer? Bearian (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

False Lights
While False Lights invasion of privacy is certainly related to defamation, it should be presented as a separate section. Its current placement is out of place and confuses both the explanation of defamation law, and the description of False Lights. 71.239.95.182 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Mikepurves (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They are easily confused, so should be distinguished. Please see the discussion page for False Light for a proposal to do this.Dr. Perfessor (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Truth, again
This is very US-centric. IANL, but shouldn't that definition be something like:

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of material that may injure the reputation of a person (whether a natural person or a fiction such as a corporation or nation), a group of persons, or anything else (such as a religion, or the deity). The communication may be transitory and ephemeral (such as spoken statements in private conversation), in which case it is "slander"; or it may be made in some fixed medium (newspapers, books, etc), in which case it is "libel".

Then we go on to the things like malicious intent, truth, public good and so on that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Mind you - what about defaming a religion? As in, not the persons practisinf gthat religion, but the religion itself? And there are special gromes fro defaming the king, or the deity (lese majeste and blasphemy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble with the whole article, and I'm posting this here rather arbitrarily rather than starting a new section as it appears this ground has already been well-traveled. The crux of my problem is that the article seems to put a lot of effort into leaving the "truth as an absolute defense" against the charge of libel as a secondary component of the definition of the word. Wiki has to decide which two concepts is most critical in the definition of the word, the "false" nature of the speech, or the "harmful" nature of the speech. To me, it sounds like wiki thinks that defamation always means "harmful speech" except when the speech is true, vs. what my sense of the word is, which is that speech is always legal, unless it is false. And I think this article has to pick a position, one way or the other, and make that a consistent theme throughout. Either truth is always a defense against slander, except for when it is not, or anything "harmful" is defamation, except in those countries where truth is a defense. Personally, I choose "A", as B is not sustainable, and opens the door for all manner of legal actions against truthful speech that is "harmful" to those that have the ability to enforce defamation laws against those brave enough to speak the truth.(edited in order to sign this)Jonny Quick (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion and fact
I've always known that opinion is not defamation; however, would it become defamation if the opinion the defendant gives is passed off by the defendant as consensus? For example, if Joe calls John a "psycotic maniac," and then goes on to state that he's not the only one who thinks John is that way, that he doesn't know of a single person who can stand John, would that become defamation, since opinion can never be proven false, but the status of an opinion as consensus can? In that case, would John merely have to find one person who Joe knows who did not think he was a psycotic maniac to fulfill the burden of proof? Thank you.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying someone is a "psychotic maniac" is not an opinion. It is a fact--a person who suffers from psychosis and mania.  Saying "he is a jerk" is an opinion, saying "in my opinion, he is cheating on his wife" is not.
 * In any case, the defense of truth does not require that your facts be perfect, just that they are substantially correct. So saying that "everyone in church thinks he is untrustworthy" when in fact only 99% of the church does will not generally be actionable.Rywhite83 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A question of clarification
I (admittedly) only skimmed the article, so perhaps the answer is in there somewhere, but does defamation only apply to the living? Can you libel or slander a dead person? I'm wondering if WP:BLP is an offshoot of actual defamation laws, or just more of a common sense practice for Wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Japan
I notice that in the Asia section, there's no mention of the case of Japan (link to Japanese wiki). Is this because it was not deemed relevant, or because of lack of people to summarize the relevant information from the Japanese page? Ginstrom (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor case in "see also"
An editor keeps reinserting Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co.. This is a minor case, setled without producing case law, that survived a deletion discussion after much off-wiki publicity, and is now being considered for merger. I think it should remain out of this article, as it is unsuitable to be the only libel case in the "see also" section, and was placed there by an editor with a well known animus against one of the defendants in that case. --AmishPete (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: AmishPete is an SPA that has been politely asked to stay out of the debate surrounding that article.  The topic's notability has been established and editors are welcome to the continuing discussions on that article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told that my being an SPA was "clouding" the discussion and to "take that as you will" (quoting from memory, see the links), whereas you were asked explicitly to stay out of all articles involving Weiss because of your conflict of interest. . Your conflict of interest consists of apperaing on message boards and in the media attacking Weiss. That's a conflict of interest. Editing on a narrow range of topics, which I've been doing a little while, is no bar from editing on Wikipedia as best as I know. --AmishPete (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

False
Looking trough the article at least South Korea, the Philippines and the UK do not hold that libels have to be false. Quickly looking trough some of the articles sources at least Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and France do not hold that libels have to be false. So what is then meant by "usually" and "in many legal systems"? Why not "sometimes" and "in some legal systems"? Sure, I noticed a fair deal of countries where libel was publication of "false statements". But I think it should be emphasized that's not always the case - and so in the lead. Steinberger (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to separate the highly specialized legal aspect from the general linguistic/historical one. In all 4-5 languages I know libel is false by definition, synonymous with slander.Galassi (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The etymology of the word "libel" is liber, "little book, petition" in latin and is know to be taken to mean "any published or written statement likely to harm a person's reputation" from the 1630s. That leaves me with the impression that it is the other way around from what you say, that the notion that libels equals "false statement" instead is deriving from "the highly specialized legal aspect" of the matter in the US.  Steinberger (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what LIBEL article says here on Wiki: "In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images." So you have it.-Galassi (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats sort of begging the question. How could something I challenge in this article be deferred by reference to this very article? Especially since the source does not support the precise words of the article (the link is dead, but here). More precisely, "In common law jurisdictions" is unsupported. And the previous rendering of the article, I reverted back, provided a footnote to another rendering of common law on this matter, namely that in the UK. So the statements in your quote is in fact false. I also noticed that "Center for Visual Computing [at Stony Brook University]" have withdrawn the supporting . Steinberger (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Defamation does not need to be false, in the sense that, under common law, falsity is not part of the plaintiff's initial burden of proof. Traditionally, a plaintiff must show that a statement (1) if true, would tend to injure his reputation; and (2) that he suffered damages as a result (or damages may be presumed). That is enough for the plaintiff to avoid a directed verdict or summary judgment. The burden then shifts to the defendant, who can raise one of several defenses, one of which is truth. If she proves truth, then she wins, but if she does not raise this defense, the plaintiff will, without ever having proven that the statement was false.Rywhite83 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the most populous country in the world, China, truth is in itself not a defense for unjustified publication of insults or private facts. That is, slander or libel does not have to be false. Steinberger (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to edit the Chinese Wikipedia.--Galassi (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the paragraphs where it is alleged that libel "usually" means that something false as it is evidently untrue in many jurisdictions covering large parts of the worlds population. If it is to be reinserted, it should be specific on where it is so. Steinberger (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added some sources for the idea that defamation must be false, including in common law jurisdictions (by the way, China is not a common law jurisdiction, outside of Hong Kong of course). That defamation must be false is an essentially definitional truth of the word "defamation". The fact that someone can be convicted of publishing true, harmful information about individuals or organizations is only tangentially relevant; as one of the sources I've brought points out, people can be convicted for publishing true, harmful information under other statues (for example, relating to privacy). If anyone has any sources explicitly stating that defamation need not be true to be defamation, please bring them forward, and clarify for which (if any) jurisdictions this is true. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All sources you presented are explicitly or implicitly concerned with US libel laws. And I or no one else on this discussion page have questioned wither truth is an absolute defense under US libel law. But the Libel Act of 1843 in the common law England, specifically limits "truth as a defense" to cases where it also is in the "publics interest". Also, separate privacy laws are unique to USA. Where it is not, the defamation laws are used. So to say that a lack of "falsity" requirement only "tangentially relevant" is US-biased. Steinberger (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And, for notice, I am not the only one who have observed this apparent US-centristism: Talk:Defamation/Archives/2013, #definition and #Truth, again. Steinberger (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A little learning is a dangerous thing. The Libel Act of 1843 deals with the question of truth in trials for criminal libel, not civil libel, as the text of section 6 of the Act makes clear. As it happens, criminal libel has been abolished in English law and the relevant section of the 1843 Act has been repealed as a consequence . BencherliteTalk 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe so (although "civil and criminal proceedings" does not clearly indicate that it is the latter and not the former). But, should I interpret you as saying that truth now is an absolute defense for libel in the UK since January 2010 (or when the repeals took effect)? Steinberger (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am deliberately not saying anything as to whether / the extent to which truth is a defence for libel in England and Wales (let alone in the rest of the UK, since the position in Scotland or in Northern Ireland may differ). I am a lawyer, but this is not my field and I am not at work today to check the details.  There are also some interesting related matters such as the position re "spent" convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and defamation claims (see section 8) but I don't have time to look into this further. BencherliteTalk 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Steinberger, you cannot remove reliably and copiously secondary sourced material simply because you disagree with it based on your personal views and analysis of primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I use defame to refer to inappropriate statements, including factually correct ones, which are intended to damage someone's reputation. The etymology (only a guideline I know) bears this out: "defame" comes from 'de' (down) + 'fama' (popularity) and has nothing to do with lying. To clarify the England & Wales law as I understand it, truth is not an absolute defence to civil libel; if the defendant can show the statements are true, the plaintiff then has the opportunity to prove that they were made with malice, and if successful, then a libel has been committed and monetary restitution may be awarded. To repeat: a true statement which damages someone's reputation and has been provably made with malice is, in England & Wales, libel. Zargulon (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, if anyone has any reliable secondary sources explicitly stating that defamation need not be true to be defamation, please bring them forward, and clarify for which (if any) jurisdictions this is true. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To correct myself - malice can be shown after the putative libel has been demonstrated to be opinion rather than a statement of fact. So what I should have said is that, in England and Wales, a a opinion, published in permanent media, which and has negative consequences for someone's reputation, and is published through malice, is libellous, even if the opinion is well-founded or reasonable. Zargulon (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is about the defamation legislation in various European countries. See for example Norway for an explicit example. "Defamation (including libel): Even if a statement is true, it may be punishable if the court finds that it was made without respectable intent or was otherwise improper." Another is Finland who have a two paragraphs, the first for false statements and another for derogatory statements "otherwise than in a manner referred to" in the first paragraph. In France "[n]either truth, nor good faith, nor the public interest provide for a defense" for invasion of privacy. Others are less explicit. But as far as I can see (I have not read the whole lot) Austria, Denmark, Sweden (this I know for sure) and the Netherlands defamation does not have to be untrue. Steinberger (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * France is a good example; the page you've provided makes it quite clear that "Invasion of privacy" is an offense that is separate from defamation. The full quote from the source is "Invasion of privacy is only a tort, unlike defamation (which may also be a criminal offence). Neither truth, nor good faith, nor the public interest provide for a defence." It would be helpful to have proper, explicit sources for each country; in which ones defamation must be false, and in which truth is not a defense. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not separate from defamation (or diffamation as it is known in French) but a subset of it. From what preceded your citation, it is clear that "invasion of privacy" have grown out of article 29 trough case law - but it still relies on the same law. But unlike ordinary defamation, which is both a crime and a tort, it is a only a tort. Steinberger (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the source states "privacy is now a right under Article 9 of the French Civil Code". Not article 29. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am afraid I also disagree, Steinberger. It may or may not be the case that diffamation is the ancestor of invasion of privacy in France, but I do not find that the page in question implies this. They seem to be mentioned together merely because they are both relevant to journalists. Zargulon (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't speak French but it seems like article 35 in the Press Freedom Act sets out the limits on truth as a defense in defamation matters, and cite matters of personal privacy as one of those. This while article 9 in the Civil Code seems to enable courts to stop the publications that reveal private facts rather then getting compensation for damages to ones reputation. If so, it would not be the first laws that is designed to compliment another, rather then replacing it. Steinberger (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For China: "Two subsequent interpretive documents by the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) have added detail to the framework that the General Principles established. In a 1993 Explanation, the court set forth three general circumstances under which defamation will be found: (1) where the content of news reports is “seriously mistaken” or, in the case of critical news reports, where the “basic content” of such reports is incorrect, and such mistakes or inaccuracies result in harm to reputation, (2) where insulting or slanderous language results in harm to reputation, or (3) where unauthorized revelation of personal details causes harm to reputation. The Explanation thus suggested that, although the truth of a media report may be a defense to a claim of harm to reputation, truth is not a defense where the alleged defamation results from insulting words or from revelation of personal details." Steinberger (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a better example for China. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a big misunderstanding concerning the defense of "truth" here. Truth is no defense to the defamation tort of false light. What we have here is an unclear understanding of how the law evolved in the colonies from the common definintion under the common law during the Empire. I am also skeptical of translations of equivalent terms in foreign languages. One should be open to the possibility that defamation is an English word with and English common-law definition. There is a value judgment being made when someone translates a foreign term into the English term of "defamation." If the definition of the terms is not the same, what we have is no exact translation or no legal equivalents. Here is the discusion according to Lord Blackstone. There is the definition of defamation from 400 years ago. That should be your baseline. Gx872op (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand your points correct and I recognize the general difficulties of accurately translating legal concepts and all that. But I am not sure that defamation universally have the connotations of being false and that translations using the word thus are incorrect for that reason. The discussion Blackstone has is for example inconclusive as I read it. Slander is always false according to him, but libel is not. And as defamation encompasses both it should thus not bear those falsity connotations. (I have pasted it below as a service, it was difficult to read as the machine translation was bad, but I have corrected it to my best knowledge.) Another example of more recent native-English usage where truth was not an absolute defence for defamation was in some states of Australia until 2006 and the "Uniform Defamation Laws". For me, that leaves to door open to translations where defamation corresponds to non-English non-common-law non-falsity-requirement concepts of similar meaning. Steinberger (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Lord Blackstone on defamation "[I]njuries affecting a man's reputation or good name are, first, by malicious, scandalous, and slanderous words tending to his damage and derogation. As if a man, maliciously and falsely, utter any slander or false tale of another : which may either endanger him in law, by impeaching him of some heinous crime, as to say that a man has poisoned another, or is perjured ; or which may exclude him from society, as to charge him with having an infectious disease ; or which may impair or hurt his trade or livelihood, as to call a tradesman a bankrupt, a physician a quack, or a lawyer a knave.

Words spoken in derogation of a peer, a judge, or other great officer of the realm, which are called scandalum magnatum, are held to be still more heinous ; and, though they be such as would not be actionable in the case of a common person, yet when spoken in disgrace of such high and respectable characters, they amount to an atrocious injury : which is redressed by an action on the case founded on many antient statutes ; as well on behalf of the crown, to inflict the punishment of imprisonment on the slanderer, as on behalf of the party, to recover damages for the injury sustained. Words also tending to scandalize a magistrate, or person in a public trust, are reputed more highly injurious than when spoken of a private man.

It is said, that formerly no actions were brought for words, unless the slander was such, as (if true) would endanger the life of the object of it. But, too great encouragement being given by this lenity to false and malicious slanderers, it is now held that for scandalous words of the several species before-mentioned, that may endanger a man in law, may exclude him from society, may impair his trade, or may affect a peer of the realm, a magistrate, or one in public trust, an action on the case may be had, without proving any particular damage to have happened, but merely upon the probability that it might happen. But with regard to words that do not thus apparently, and upon the face of them, import such defamation as will of course be injurious, it is necessary that the plaintiff should aver fome particular damage to have happened ; which is called laying his action with a per quod. As if I say that such a clergyman is a bastard, he cannot for this bring any action against me, unless he can show some special loss by it ; in which case he may bring his action against me, for saying he was a bastard, per quod he lost the presentation to such a living. In like manner to slander another man's title, by spreading such injurious reports as, if true, would deprive him of his estate (as to call the issue in tail, or one who hath land by descent, a bastard) is actionable, provided any special damage accrues to the proprietor thereby ; as if he loses an opportunity of felling the land. But mere scurrility, or opprobrious words, which neither in themfelves import, nor are in fact attended with, any injurious effects, will not support an action. So scandals, which concern matters merely spiritual, as to call a man heretic or adulterer, are cognizable only in the ecclesiastical court ; unless any temporal damage ensues, which may be a foundation for a per quod. Words of heat and passion, as to call man rogue and rascal, if productive of no ill consequence, and not of any of the dangerous species before-mentioned, are not actionable : neither are words spoken in a friendly manner, as by way of advice, admonition, or concern, without any tincture or circumstance of ill will : for, in both these cases, they are not maliciously spoken, which is part of the definition of slander. Neither (as was formerly hinted) are any reflecting words made use of in legal proceedings, and pertinent to the cause in hand, a sufficient cause of action for slander. Also if the defendant be able to justify, and prove the words to be true, no action will lie, even though special damage has ensued : for then it is no slander or false tale. As if I can prove the tradesman a bankrupt, the physician a quack, the lawyer a knave, and the divine a heretic, this will destroy their respective actions ; for though there may be damage sufficient accruing from it, yet, if the fact be true, it is damnum absque injuria ; and where there is no injury, the law gives no remedy. And this is agreeable to the reasoning of the civil law: “eum, qui nocentem infamat, non est aequum et bonum ob eam rem condemnari ; delicta enim nocentium nota esse oportet et expedit.”

A SECOND way of affecting a man's reputation is by printed or written libels, pictures, signs, and the like ; which set him in an odious or ridiculous light, and thereby diminish his reputation. With regard to libels in general, there are, as in many other cases, two remedies ; one by indictment and another by action. The former for the public offence ; for every libel has a tendency to break the peace, or provoke others to break it : which offence is the same whether the matter contained be true or false ; and therefore the defendant, on an indictment for publishing a libel, is not allowed to alledge the truth of it by way of justification. But in the remedy by action on the case, which is to repair the party in damages for the injury done him, the defendant may, as for words spoken, justify the truth of the facts, and show that the plaintiff has received no injury at all. What was said with regard to words spoken, will also hold in every particular with regard to libels by writing or printing, and the civil actions consequent thereupon : but as to signs or pictures, it seems necessary always to show, by proper innuendo's and averments of the defendant's meaning, the import and application of the scandal, and that some special damage has followed ; otherwise it cannot appear, that such libel by picture was understood to be levelled at the plaintiff, or that it was attended with any actionable consequences.

A THIRD way of destroying or injuring a man's reputation is, by preferring malicious indictments or prosecutions against him ; which, under the mask of justice and public spirit, are sometimes made the engines of private spite and enmity. For this however the law has given a very adequate remedy in damages, either by an action of conspiracy, which cannot be brought but against two at the least ; or, which is the more usual way, by a special action on the case for a false and malicious prosecution. In order to carry on the former (which gives a recompense for the danger to which the party has been exposed) it is necessary that the plaintiff should obtain a copy of the record of his indictment and acquittal ; but, in prosecutions for felony, it is usual to deny a copy of the indictment, where there is any, the least, probable cause to found such prosecution upon. For it would be a very great discouragement to the public justice of the kingdom, if prosecutors, who had a tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law whenever their indictments miscarried. But an action for a malicious prosecution may be founded on such an indictment whereon no acquittal can be ; as if it be rejected by the grand jury, or be coram non judice, or be insufficiently drawn. For it is not the danger of the plaintiff, but the scandal, vexation, and expense, upon which this action is founded. However, any probable cause for preferring it is sufficient to justify the defendant."

Difference between libel and slander
This section is incorrect. At least under US/British common law libel is treated differently. Damages in a libel case are presumed, which is true only for a small class of slander (impugning the chastity of a woman, heinous crime, conduct incompatible with one's chosen profession, or a "loathsome disease"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rywhite83 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Korea
I don't want to touch the current Republic of Korea section (except I added "citation needed" flag on the last sentence) as I am not an expert in this field, but the current article raises a few questions:

1. The article states that "truth is not important with defamation" in Korea. That is not perfectly accurate. One can use truth as a defense when the defamation was solely intended for public interests; or the defamation was against the deceased (Penal Code, Articles 308 and 310). Even in the case where the defamation was against a living person and not for public interests, the maximum sentence depends on the truth (Articles 307 and 309).

2. The article says that "Defamation is covered under the 'Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc." As a matter of fact, defamation is generally punishable by the Penal Code, Articles 307 thru 310 (I am not sure 311 and 312 also categorizes as defamation; expert opinion needed) and the mentioned Act only further rules a special case. The Act is well-known because of the recent arguable abuse of the law and debates around it, but it definitely is not the law that primarily defines punishability.

3. In the last paragrph, a June 2010 case is cited. Although I couldn't retrieve the details of the case as it lacks citation (the given citation refers to the Act itself, not the particular case records or the case number), the case doesn't seem to be more about the defamation itself than it is about the legal principle that a foreign lawyer who is not licensed in Korea cannot legally practice law in Korea. The case, according to the given description, is a case where the attorney-client privilege was repudiated when the attorney was not licensed in Korea, rather than one where the primary question was whether the defendant's act is a defamation or not. (Although one could argue that Canadian law effectively keeps the communication private, whereas Korean defamation law requires openliness in a rather technical sense.)

4. I understand Korean defamation law was based on (older versions of) German law imported through Japan. That said, I am not sure if a comparison to a common law country ("North American laws" in the first paragraph) would mean much.

I personally agree that Korean defamtion law needs a major reform in light of basic constitution rights such as freedom of speech, but it is another issue to maintain a Wikipedia article most accurate: not that there is any direct inaccuracy in the current article, but I think certain omissions could lead to undermining the netrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctst1212 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Expert tag?
I see that there's a tag here but don't see any mention of why in discussion. Since Wikipedia policy links to this article, it's important it be accurate. Anyone watching who wants to comment? Should tag be removed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support getting rid of it - it serves no useful purpose.--Penbat (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it on for a couple days just because I asked people on the WP:BLP policy talk page to take a look and see if there really is something wrong with the article and it being there might make them be more diligent :-) I don't feel like checking it out myself right now, but maybe someone with more expertise will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been there a year with no explanation. Time to go. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Criminal defamation/Washington: repealed by 2009?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/dispo.aspx?cite=9.58.010 says "Repealed by 2009 c 88 § 1." --91.9.96.140 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

India
I have removed the massive paste of the Indian law. I see that some people have restored this pointing out that it is not copyright violation. That is probably true but it is still not good article content. It is over-long and hard to understand. There is more to good encyclopaedic coverage than just pasting a copy of the text of the law. The section should be expanded with text we write ourselves using a variety of sources to cover the subject properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying that something is "over-long" is not an argument for deletion. See WP:NOTPAPER. The material that you have removed is not hard to understand and that isn't an argument for deletion either. We do not need to re-write things ourselves simply for the sake of doing so. In any event you have not re-written the content, you have simply blanked it altogether without re-writing it. What you replaced it with doesn't retain more than a small fraction of the substance of the original. We will probably need to include somewhere the actual text of the legislation, and certainly the whole substance of it and all of the case law on it. James500 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We certainly do not need to quote the law in full. We do not do so for any other country so it would clearly be undue and excessive to do it just for India. Besides it is blatantly inappropriate to just paste in external material without contextual information, or even identifying the source. This is reference material. It should be used as a reference. For the article content we need a coherent summary of the law which explains they key points, the similarities and differences with other countries and any notable issues surrounding it. Small parts of direct quotation can be used when the precise wording is key to understanding a major point. Look at the way we quote the Bible, to pick another non-copyrighted source as an example. We quote relevant verses as part of our coverage of the subject. We certainly don't paste in whole Bible chapters into articles in lieu of writing the articles properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If we do not include the whole substance of the law for every jurisdiction (including all historical laws), all that means is that our coverage of defamation is incomplete. To put it another way, the problem is not that there was too much material for India, but that there is not nearly enough on the other countries.
 * If the material on India was making this page too long, the solution was to split off the detailed material for India into a separate article on Indian defamation law, leaving a summary behind. The solution was not to delete the detailed material altogether.
 * I am not sure what you mean by "contextual information". If you are suggesting that the text of legislation should be deleted just because the case law, if there is any, that explains it, has yet be added, that is not desirable because it would make the task of writing articles needlessly difficult. The whole point of a wiki is that it allows articles to be constructed in large numbers of small steps which, being small, are less difficult.
 * "without ... even identifying the source". The source was identified as sections 499 to 502 of "the Indian Penal Code 1860", which I assume to be a short title authorised by statute. A statute can be cited by such a short title alone, without further explanation. The code referred to appears to be the code described in the article Indian Penal Code.
 * "This is reference material. It should be used as a reference." That simply makes no sense. The statute was used as a reference.
 * "we need a coherent summary of the law which explains they key points". No, we need a lot more than that. We need a complete explanation of the law that includes every point for which there is authority. Laws do not have key points. In any event, the text of the statutory provisions is a coherent summary of the law.
 * "we need a coherent summary of the law which explains . . . the similarities and differences with other countries". That is an exercise in comparative law. It would probably not go in the section on an individual country.
 * I don't consider the comparison with the Bible to be valid as the Bible is not a statute. What is appropriate for the Bible may not be appropriate for legislation.
 * "Small parts of direct quotation can be used when the precise wording is key to understanding a major point". The courts will be looking at the exact wording of the statute, and quite possibly micro-analysing it in great detail word by word. The precise wording may well be key to understanding every point. And laws don't have "major points". James500 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is definitely undue weight to have the whole law in verbatim in this article, and it is also bad style as Quotations states. The main points important for the subject matter of this article will do, and preferably with only a few short quotes and the rest in summary. Having a content summary is not an exercise in comparative law if it is suitably sourced, there should be no lack of reliable secondary sources summarising the main points of this law. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also why don't you just start a Defamation law in India article and then use the mainarticle template here to link to it.. Zargulon (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a good solution. Although I am still not sure such extensive verbatim quotation belongs in Wikipedia at all, I think it would be more appropriate on sites like Wikisource or similar places. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotations is only an essay. The suggestion that the relevant statutory provisions should not be set out verbatim only on account of their length is close to nonsense. It is not as if there is a choice of sources. The provisions simply are the law.

"Having a content summary is not an exercise in comparative law if it is suitably sourced". You do not know what comparative law is. Comparative law is "the study of differences and similarities between the law of different countries". A "summary . . . of the similarities and differences with other countries", as Daniel proposed, is, by definition, an exercise in comparative law, regardless of what sources are used.

I did not start Indian defamation law because I was under the impression that the deletion of the material in question from this article was an objection to its inclusion anywhere. James500 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't make assumptions about what I know or don't know. As one that also regularly deals with the subject of the law through my profession, I can appreciate that in the law profession such distinctions are quite important, and most often crucial. But this is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a law text book, and the standards for inclusion are quite different as are the readers. This article has to be written for people with little to no knowledge of the subject and needs to be a general introduction to the subject of defamation aimed at a general readership, not a professional legal text that includes the minor details that are only important in a professional context. For those particulars we refer to citations or external references. It is with that intention that the essay was written, and while you are quite right that it is not policy, following its directions in this case simply makes for a better encyclopedia.
 * That is why summarising a legal text in Wikipedia is not the same as the academic discipline of comparative law, and is actually rather necessary when writing for a general purpose encyclopedia. As an established editor, I would have thought you had long since noticed this, especially since you mainly edit legal articles (If you haven't already, I would recommend you read Five pillars, especially the first one and the part about Wikipedia not being "... a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects" and What Wikipedia is not points 6-8). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "the minor details that are only important in a professional context". The provisions were not "minor", and, as they are directly binding on over 900 million people and are the subject of academic study, are certainly important outside of a professional context. Nor do we exclude such information from the encyclopedia either.
 * "That is why summarising a legal text in Wikipedia is not the same as the academic discipline of comparative law". You do not appear to have understood what I wrote. I did not say that summarising a legal text was the same as the academic discipline of comparative law. I said that a "summary . . . of the similarities and differences" of the law of one country "with" the law of "other countries" was comparative law, which it clearly is.
 * WP:MIRROR was not engaged by the content in question because the quote was not lengthy.
 * NOTTEXTBOOK was not engaged either. There were no "leading questions" or "systematic problem solutions as examples". James500 (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

persons (including juristic persons) and groups
Hi, the opening definition includes "victims" which are groups etc. This is different from Oxford and Collins dictionaries. As this has a large impact on libel and slander, either the groups should be removed, or separated from libel and slander and a separate section be included under types. Any suggestions welcome.109.148.2.55 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing definition of what counts as defamation
This article could do a better job of discussing the fact that certain statements that once qualified as defaming no longer are in certain legal jurisdiction. For example, In NY state, the appeals court recently rules that labeling a person as gay is no longer slanderous. The same applies to calling a white person black, since it is no longer general perceived as slanderous to be called black. What we really need is to better describe what it takes for a statement to be considered slanderous. It's my understanding that merely making a false statement about another person in speech or writing is not defamation if one can argue that the statement is not negative. Things like calling a person a Democrat a Republican, a man a women, A Christian a Jew, and so fourth would not be slanderous since such labels are not currently considered negative by most, even if might disagree. This seems like an definitional issue that should be addressed in the article, right? The article should address incidences where someone mistakenly places a label on someone else they see as positive. A good example would be a gay-rights activist outing another person they believe to be gay only to discover they where wrong. Now some people would view being called gay as slander but otherwise would not see it as so even though it's incorrect much as no one would view mistakenly calling a German person Italian as slander. It's fairly easy with accusation of being a child abuser, rapist, pedophile, cannibal, etc. but what about a Socialist, Scientologist, adult viewer of Barney the Dinosaur, or some other controversial practice that some would view as defamatory but others would not. Maybe this is an area of defamation law that is too complicated and varied to properly address in the article though I think we could at least say something more about this and address it in more depth in country specific articles on defamation law. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)