Talk:Defamation/Archives/2019

Defamation and Intent
There has been a recent effort by @Galassi to change the introduction of this article from "Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement that harms reputation of,..." to "Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement with the intent of harming the reputation of,..." When I reverted that modification I left a note explaining why -- it makes the article inaccurate -- and provided references. It is simply not the case that every jurisdiction in the world requires intent to harm before a defamation suit can succeed. The article should again be corrected.

When reverting content, please keep in mind the "three-revert rule".Arllaw (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR. You haven't documented your claim.--Galassi (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , the article was stable for some time without including the bit about intent. You can't just suddenly state there's no consensus.  But you're both edit warring while you should be discussing it here.  I'm going to post about this at WT:LAW for an outside opinion.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I initiated a discussion here and got no response, so I corrected the article.
 * As an example, in the United States under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the standard of liability for a media company (e.g., a newspaper) to be liable for defamation is actual malice -- a term of art that means that the defendant knew that the information they published was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. It is not required that the plaintiff prove that the defendant intended to publish a false statement, nor is there any requirement of intent to harm somebody's reputation. See also the California Jury Instruction for Defamation per quod, pursuant to which liability may result if the defendant "failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statement", with no requirement of intent to cause harm. Arllaw (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article remains incorrect. Is anybody going to object if it is now corrected?
 * On a related note the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act protects U.S. online services from being sued for defamatory user-generated content. Such a provision would rarely be needed but for the fact that liability for defamation can result from "passing on" defamatory content, even though you neither know it to be defamatory or intend harm to anybody's reputation. Arllaw (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)