129-535: Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law . The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started
258-443: A per se action: If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages. As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se . This means that even if
387-419: A case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made, but, even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case
516-466: A child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed." Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of
645-493: A claimant is found guilty of launching a defamation lawsuit despite that the statement at hand is, in fact, accurate, the defendant may launch a counterclaim for fraud, recovery of unjustified settlement funds, and other factors. An example is that of the Sunday Times and cyclist Lance Armstrong . Armstrong was paid £300,000 by the newspaper after a libel claim in 2004. Following the report by USADA in 2012 on Armstrong's doping,
774-711: A commoner in England was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a member of the English aristocracy was called scandalum magnatum, literally "the scandal of magnates". Following the Second World War and with the rise of contemporary international human rights law , the right to a legal remedy for defamation was included in Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that: This implies
903-453: A company informed the chairman of alleged sexual misconduct involving Watt. This communication was deemed privilege, but the informing of such suspicion to the claimant's wife was not. The defence has seen expansion recently in light of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd , where the House of Lords —drawing principally on Lord Nicholls ' judgement—established that the mass media could be entitled to
1032-458: A crime if it could provoke revenge that would threaten a breach of the peace , that libel against the monarch or government could be illegal, even if true, because "it concerns not only the breach of the peace, but also the scandal of government", and that a libel against a public figure was a more serious offence than one against a private person. This set a precedent in common law that judges decided all factors except that of publication; therefore,
1161-406: A criminal offence and provide for penalties as such. Article 19 , a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state. There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in
1290-408: A defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: Additionally, American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defence. While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into
1419-431: A defendant in a defamation lawsuit, in addition to proving the truth of the statement which would be considered an affirmative defence, a number of additional defences often employed may include the following: This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. The honest opinion defence (formerly
SECTION 10
#17328840588231548-459: A famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution , " intentional interference with contract ", and "negligent misrepresentation". In America, for example, the unique tort of false light protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading. Libel and slander both require publication. Although laws vary by state; in America,
1677-485: A guilty verdict from a jury in a libel trial resolved only that the material had been published while the judge decided whether a libel had been committed. The Libel Act 1843 enacted several codifications of defamation law in the UK, including the offer of an apology and the claim that the libel was without malice or neglect as mitigating evidence , as well as malicious and knowingly false libel as aggravating evidence. Up until
1806-458: A humiliating or degrading manner), et cetera. "Fama" is a generic term referring to reputation and actio iniuriarum pertaining to it encompasses defamation more broadly Beyond simply covering actions that fall within the broader concept of defamation, "actio iniuriarum" relating to infringements of a person's corpus provides civil remedies for assaults, acts of a sexual or indecent nature, and 'wrongful arrest and detention'. In Scots law , which
1935-523: A left-wing newspaper, condemning the London Evening Standard for unethically publishing a certain story. Lord Kemsley , who owned other newspapers, maintained that the article's headline, "Lower than Kemsley", impugned the standards of the Kemsley press. The defence of fair comment was allowed to stand. There is also no need for the perpetrator of the comment to actually believe in it as in court
2064-434: A libel case in an American court, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (i.e. actual malice ). The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. An early example of libel
2193-498: A long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies, defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law. Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation
2322-449: A manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter. A statement can include an implication; for instance, a photograph of a particular politician accompanying a headline reading "Corrupt Politicians" could be held as an allegation that that politician
2451-526: A performance of a play or in any programme included in a programme service can be considered publication in permanent form. Neither of these sections apply to Scotland . Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1952 had allowed the "broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy" to be considered publication in permanent form. This section was repealed and replaced by the Broadcasting Act 1990. In
2580-461: A person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to three years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd). Defamation law in Australia developed primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by
2709-419: A presumptive case of publication against the defendant by the act of any other person by his authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove that such publication was made without his authority, consent, or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from want of due care or caution on his part. The words in square brackets were inserted by section 177 of, and paragraph 66 of Schedule 21 to,
SECTION 20
#17328840588232838-558: A provably false factual connotation. Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet. American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries . A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and
2967-621: A right to legal protection against defamation; however, this right co-exists with the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Article 19 of the ICCPR expressly provides that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be limited so far as it is necessary "for respect of the rights or reputations of others". Consequently, international human rights law provides that while individuals should have
3096-655: A series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation. English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation . Allowable defences are justification, honest opinion (previously known as fair comment), and privilege. A defamatory statement
3225-473: A slander; this is called 'slander actionable per se'. The Faulks Committee, a parliamentary committee set up to propose reforms to UK defamation law, recommended in 1975 that this distinction between libel and slander should be abolished. The following are actionable without proof of special or actual damage: In addition, under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952, no proof of special or actual damage
3354-430: A statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of " invasion of privacy " in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". The tort of harassment created by Singapore's Protection from Harassment Act 2014 is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute. There
3483-557: A whole group of actors resigned from a play the director wrote a letter to each of them and to their agent company, accusing them of plotting against him. The case was decided to be a matter of public concern because of the general interest in entertainment. For an opinion to be honest opinion it must be based upon facts, as highlighted in Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345. The politician and journalist Michael Foot had printed an article in Tribune ,
3612-499: Is 'little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law' in the development of mechanisms to protect so-called 'rights of personality'. The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise, and afford reparation in, cases in which no patrimonial (or 'quasi-patrimonial') 'loss' has occurred, but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through
3741-465: Is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $ 25 100 ). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment. In Argentina , the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter "Crimes Against Honor" (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny
3870-417: Is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of " misrepresentation ", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that
3999-553: Is clear and accessible to everyone", 2) "proven to be necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputations of others", and 3) "proportionate and the least restrictive to achieve the purported aim". This test is analogous to the Oakes Test applied domestically by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under Section 1 of
English defamation law - Misplaced Pages Continue
4128-431: Is closely related to Roman Dutch law, the remedy for defamation is similarly the actio iniuriarium and the most common defence is "veritas" (i.e. proving the truth of otherwise defamatory statement). Defamation falls within the realm of non-patrimonial (i.e. dignitary) interests. The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non-patrimonial interests is said to be 'a thing of shreds and patches'. This notwithstanding, there
4257-544: Is defined as "the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit" (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos . He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110). He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for
4386-502: Is further affected by federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law. New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954 . New Zealand law allows for
4515-540: Is generally agreed to be the De Libellis Famosis case, tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I by Edward Coke who, in his judgement on the case, said that a person's "good name ... ought to be more precious to him than his life". The case centred around an "infamous" libel about John Whitgift , the late Archbishop of Canterbury . It was held that libel against a private person could be considered
4644-592: Is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent. Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention. The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the American Revolution . Though the First Amendment of the American Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by
4773-755: Is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict freedom of expression . Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe , have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation. The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of
4902-528: Is needed for "slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood" related to: Slander imputing "loathsome" or contagious diseases also used to be actionable per se under English common law. It was removed by section 14 of the Defamation Act 2013 , but remains in other jurisdictions. Under section 166 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and section 4 of the Theatres Act 1968 , statements both within
5031-545: Is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred. However, Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate. As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in Quebec where
5160-401: Is not defamation. While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions; differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law, statutes and other legislative action, and constitutional concerns specific to individual jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of injury , intentional infliction of emotional distress , involving the making of
5289-409: Is often purchased by publishers and journalists to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. Roughly 3/4 of all money spent on claims by liability insurers goes to lawyers and only 1/4 goes to settlements or judgments, according to one estimate from Michelle Worrall Tilton of Media Risk Consultants. Some advise buying worldwide coverage that offers defense against cases regardless of where in
English defamation law - Misplaced Pages Continue
5418-417: Is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism , plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject
5547-455: Is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence. Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to
5676-499: Is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish the New York Weekly Journal . When he printed another man's article criticising William Cosby , the royal governor of Colonial New York , Zenger was accused of seditious libel . The verdict was returned as not guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there
5805-492: Is typically regarded as a tort for which the offended party can take civil action . The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range from damages to court orders requiring the defendant to retract the offending statement or to publish a correction or an apology. Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from English defamation law . English law allows actions for libel to be brought in
5934-521: The California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario's Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff. There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions. The two most fundamental defences arise from
6063-634: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the " necessary in a democratic society " test applied by the European Court of Human Rights in assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR, Section 36 of the post- Apartheid Constitution of South Africa , and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. Nevertheless, the worldwide use of criminal and civil defamation , to censor, intimidate or silence critics, has been increasing in recent years. In 2011,
6192-444: The Commonwealth of Independent States , America, and Canada. Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of R v Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of
6321-509: The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . This section was replaced for the Republic of Ireland by section 7 of the Defamation Act, 1961 . This section, in its original form, applied to a prosecution for blasphemous libel . This section permitted a defendant who had been charged by a private prosecutor to recover the costs of his legal defence if found not guilty . This section was repealed by
6450-430: The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . This section was replaced for the Republic of Ireland by section 12 of the Defamation Act, 1961 . Alternative verdict See Boaler v R (1888) 21 QBD 284, (1888) 16 Cox 488, (1888) 4 TLR 565 This section formerly provided: If any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, every such person, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to fine or imprisonment or both, as
6579-530: The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . This section was replaced for the Republic of Ireland by section 6 of the Defamation Act, 1961 . This section did not apply to seditious libel . In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, this section now reads: Whensoever [in Northern Ireland], upon the trial of any indictment or information for the publication of a [blasphemous] libel, under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall establish
SECTION 50
#17328840588236708-557: The Defamation Act 2013 , Parliament had enacted defamation law reforms about every 50 years, with the Defamation Acts of 1996 and 1952 being the two most recent. Most of these reforms have focused on trying to alter the law around the high burden of proof on defendants and the large damages awarded in past cases, which critics have said stifles free speech , and perceived overreach of English courts when they exercise jurisdiction in cases which in reality have little connection to
6837-523: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and section 72 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 . This defence was abolished by s4(6) Defamation Act 2013 , being replaced with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest. In general, everyone involved in the dissemination of the defamation is liable as having published it. But it has been held that some forms of distribution are so mechanical that
6966-530: The Larceny Act 1916 . This section formerly provided: If any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, knowing the same to be false, every such person, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding two years, and to pay such fine as the court shall award. This section was repealed for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 178 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 23, to
7095-451: The McLibel case, when McDonald's sued several protesters. The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place. While in libel cases there is no burden to prove damage done to reputation, there generally is in slander cases. In some specific circumstances however, there is no need to prove that damage was caused by
7224-458: The Sunday Times stated it might attempt to recover the money it lost and might counterclaim Armstrong for fraud. Armstrong ultimately settled with the paper for an undisclosed sum in 2013. In certain instances, including but not limited to those involving public interests or responsible journalism, the burden of proof will be increasingly complex and require additional proceedings that may remain ongoing for years and come at significant costs. As
7353-457: The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of
7482-576: The United Nations Human Rights Committee published their General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34) – regarding Article 19 of the ICCPR. Paragraph 47 states: Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3 [of Article 19 of the ICCPR], and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as
7611-401: The defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures , consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in
7740-478: The fall of the Roman Empire seemed to follow the idea of iniuria , allowing plaintiffs who had been insulted to accept monetary compensation instead of seeking revenge. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent as far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). There was no distinction drawn between written and spoken words, and when no monetary penalty was involved, such cases fell within
7869-477: The Defamation Act 2013, Section 4 subsection 6. This does not have an effect on the common law defence based on a reciprocity of duty or interest as between the maker of the statement and the recipient. See section 15 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Defamation Act 1996 . See also section 1(5) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 , section 121 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 , section 79 of
SECTION 60
#17328840588237998-476: The Dutch Caribbean) gives rise to a claim by way of " actio iniuriarum ". For liability under the actio iniuriarum , the general elements of delict must be present, but specific rules have been developed for each element. Causation, for example, is seldom in issue, and is assumed to be present. The elements of liability under the actio iniuriarum are as follows: Under the actio iniuriarum , harm consists in
8127-592: The English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech). It is treated as a civil wrong ( tort , delict ), as a criminal offence , or both. Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult – as applicable to every citizen – to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures): Defamation law has
8256-525: The High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation ) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. In contemporary common law jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than
8385-558: The UK, giving rise to ' libel tourism '. The common law crimes of criminal libel and seditious libel were abolished for UK citizens by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 , and the crime of blasphemous libel was abolished as a crime by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 . An increase in defamation litigation has been noted in England from the early seventeenth century. In the south of England, this litigation rose most sharply in cases of sexual slander and were notable for
8514-526: The United States, criminal defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states ( Idaho , Kansas , Louisiana , Nevada , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Utah ) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of
8643-407: The abolition of the common law offence of defamatory libel by section 73(b) of that Act. This section was replaced for the Republic of Ireland by section 11 of the Defamation Act, 1961 . This section allowed the defendant to prove the truth of a libel as a valid defence in criminal proceedings, but only if it also be demonstrated that publication of the libel was to the "Public Benefit". Proving
8772-457: The actor ought not to be held liable unless he/she ought to have realized that there was defamation involved. The defence is known as innocent dissemination or mechanical distributor. A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves on the balance of probabilities that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating
8901-435: The calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about
9030-403: The case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable and unrecognisable by U.S. courts if they don't comply with U.S. protections for freedom of speech and due process , which was made largely in response to the English laws. The Defamation Act 2013 substantially changed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing
9159-412: The case told that the jury believed that "where a writing ... inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel." This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify
9288-559: The comment will be measured according to an "objective" test. In Telnikoff v Matusevitch (1992), Telnikoff wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph criticising the BBC Russian Service for over-recruiting people from ethnic minority groups. Matusevitch replied accusing the claimant of being a racist. The House of Lords held that he had to show that the comment was based around the article, which would make it fair comment as it
9417-408: The common laws of libel generally only require the claimant to prove that a statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory – a relatively easy element to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the content of the statement was false. On the other hand, as a defendant in the common laws of libel, proving the truth of the statement would be considered an affirmative defence. If
9546-416: The common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show " serious harm " was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant. While specific legal requirements may differ depending on local laws,
9675-599: The country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice – that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims, as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain
9804-419: The court may award, such imprisonment not to exceed the term of one year. This section did not create or define an offence. It provided the penalty for the existing common law offence of defamatory libel . This section was repealed for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 178 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 23, to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . The repeal of this section was consequential on
9933-539: The crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence. For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts. In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions, criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition , false statements in connection with elections, and
10062-471: The criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others. While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently, it
10191-417: The criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest , and privileged publications. The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014. The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure; Anglo-Saxon law practiced in England after
10320-582: The defence, where criteria of "responsible journalism" (further expanded upon in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd ) were met. This expansion was confirmed in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe , and has been described as giving newspapers protections similar to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . The defence used in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was abolished by
10449-527: The defences of absolute and qualified privilege, fair comment, and justification. While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation, there is no corresponding provision in India, though it
10578-419: The defendant in any action for libel or slander begun after the commencement of that Act by a rehabilitated person, and founded upon the publication of any matter imputing that the plaintiff has committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for an offence which was the subject of a spent conviction , from relying on any defence of justification which is available to him, or restrict
10707-771: The defendant's comments were made in Parliament, or under oath in a court of law, they are entitled to absolute privilege. This privilege is absolute: qualified privilege protects only the communication of the complained statement. There can be no investigation into whether remarks made in a situation of absolute privilege are defamatory. There are several situations where the defence of qualified privilege applies. Reports and remarks of Parliamentary proceedings, as well as reports of judicial proceedings attract qualified privilege. These have to be "fair and accurate"; as Lord Denning stated in Associated Newspaper Ltd v Dingle , if
10836-421: The doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable. Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions
10965-532: The exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel. Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732). In this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews". The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had
11094-611: The fair comment defence) is sometimes known as "the critic's defence" as it is designed to protect the right of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs. It also defends comments on works of art in the public eye such as theatre productions, music, and literature. However, fair comment, and justification defences will fail if they are based on misstatements of fact. An example of this arose in London Artists Ltd v Littler (1969). When
11223-430: The first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists, journalists, and critics of corporations, political leaders, and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation. As a result, tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions;
11352-402: The following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages. Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed. As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory, there
11481-517: The freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986). According to the Criminal Code of Albania , defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from 40 000 ALL (c. $ 350) to one million ALL (c. $ 8350 ). If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine
11610-559: The implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997). In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia. In addition to fixing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories, the laws made a number of changes to the common law position, including: Libel Act 1843 The Libel Act 1843 , commonly known as Lord Campbell's Libel Act ,
11739-462: The increasing number of women pursuing litigation in defence of their sexual reputation. In one respect, this pattern has been linked with increasing legal access for women. In another respect, however, it has been linked to the rise of "middling" traders in urban centres and an increasing concern with the defence of family reputation in which a woman's sexual integrity was coterminous with the integrity of her household. A similar pattern has been noted in
11868-498: The infringement of a personality right, either "corpus", "dignitas", or "fama". Dignitas is a generic term meaning 'worthiness, dignity, self-respect', and comprises related concerns like mental tranquillity and privacy. Because it is such a wide concept, its infringement must be serious. Not every insult is humiliating; one must prove contumelia . This includes insult ( iniuria in the narrow sense), adultery, loss of consortium, alienation of affection, breach of promise (but only in
11997-462: The libel and increasing the damages. A statement quoting another person cannot be justified merely by proving that the other person had also made the statement: the substance of the allegation must be proved. The Defamation Act 2013 replaced this defence with the defence of truth. Section 8(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides that nothing in section 4(1) of that Act prevents
12126-474: The like, then it is slander. In contrast, libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel. The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$ 222.7 million was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favour of MMAR Group Inc; however,
12255-466: The matters he may establish in support of any such defence. But a defendant in any such action is not, by virtue of the said section 8(3), entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice . The Act does not apply to offences that warrant a 4-year prison sentence or more, which can never be spent. In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against
12384-424: The northern English jurisdictions but this rise seems not to have occurred until the latter years of the seventeenth century. See defamatory libel . English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation) in
12513-514: The offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting. According to Ulpian , not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo , he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city (" adversus bonos mores huius civitatis ") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt (" quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret ") the person exposed thereto. Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum . In such
12642-403: The offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. In Anglo-Saxon England , whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue. Historically, while defamation of
12771-408: The old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts , which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century. It seems uncertain whether or not any generally applicable criminal process was in place. The crime of scandalum magnatum (insulting the peers of the realm through slander or libel) was established by the Statute of Westminster 1275 , c. 34, but the first instance of criminal libel
12900-433: The person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander , and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel . The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or
13029-406: The plaintiff, a defence of justification does not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. In other words, to succeed in their defence of justification, the defendant need not prove every charge to be true, just enough of the charges so that
13158-448: The private law is derived from French civil law). In common law provinces and territories, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995),
13287-730: The publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi , from which is derived the modern use of the word libel ; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils , the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false. The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: " qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo. " In this case,
13416-813: The remaining charges do not on their own constitute a material injury to the plaintiff's reputation. See section 2 of the Libel Act 1843 and the Libel Act 1845 . This defence has fallen into disuse. In 1975, the Faulks Committee recommended that it be abolished. See the proviso to section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 . See section 4A(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 . The level of damages awarded for defamation cases have been subject to sustained criticism from judges and academics. Some have commented that libel damages are high compared to
13545-496: The reputation or rights of others. Additionally, restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws (including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and by the constitutions of a variety of countries are subject to some variation of the three-part test recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee which requires that limitations be: 1) "provided by law that
13674-458: The right to a legal remedy for defamation, this right must be balanced with the equally protected right to freedom of opinion and expression. In general, ensuring that domestic defamation law adequately balances individuals' right to protect their reputation with freedom of expression and of the press entails: In most of Europe, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect
13803-483: The state rather than defamation suits; thus, for most of American history, the Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in
13932-533: The statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures . Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public". Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include: Media liability or defamation insurance
14061-451: The statement was defamatory. In an action for defamation per se , the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation per se , there are four general categories of false statement that typically support
14190-539: The statement would be considered defamatory per se if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation per se cannot survive. The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality , ruled that describing someone as gay
14319-500: The statement's truth had previously been allowed only in civil libel defences inasmuch as the criminal offence against the public at large was considered to be provoking a breach of peace via printing malicious statements rather than the defamation per se; the truth or falsity of the statement had therefore been considered irrelevant in criminal proceedings before the Act. This section was repealed for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 178 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 23, to
14448-399: The statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. Common law jurisdictions vary as to whether they permit corporate plaintiffs in defamation actions. Under contemporary Australian law, private corporations are denied the right to sue for defamation, with an exception for small businesses (corporations with less than 10 employees and no subsidiaries); this rule
14577-628: The statutory defence of honest opinion. Change to the name of the defence had been suggested in 1975 by the Faulks Committee on the basis that it protected unfair comment as well as fair comments. Renaming of the defence was recommended by the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph where Lord Phillips suggested a change to "honest comment"—the Court of Appeal in British Chiropractic Association v Singh had previously suggested "honest opinion". If
14706-417: The subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of
14835-593: The sums awarded for personal injuries . In a consultation considering personal injury damages the Law Commission commented that: Libel Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable , and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour . In
14964-454: The truth of the remaining charges". Similarly, the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true. Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether
15093-413: The truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice (i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth). A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win
15222-543: The use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions. The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries. While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation, criminal defamation
15351-602: The verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees. In common law jurisdictions, civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism. A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore's ruling People's Action Party to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as J. B. Jeyaretnam . Over
15480-452: The world they are filed, since a compainant can look for a more favorable jurisdiction to file their claim. Investigative journalism usually requires higher insurance premiums, with some plans not covering investigative work altogether. Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se , such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that
15609-402: The writer "garnishes" and "embellishes" such reports with any form of circumstantial evidence, the defence cannot apply. Additionally, where there is a mutual interest between two parties, statements deemed to be defamatory are protected where it can be proved there is a duty to impart them. The case of Watt v Longsdon exemplifies this principle, and the limitations of it. Here, the director of
15738-559: The wrongful conduct of the defender. For such reparation to be offered, however, the non-patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted: negligent interference with a non-patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability. An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious' —that is, it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer's recognised personality interest that an intention to affront ( animus iniuriandi ) might be imputed. In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as
15867-622: Was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom . It enacted several important codifications of and modifications to the common law tort of libel . This Act was repealed for the Republic of Ireland by section 4 of, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to, the Defamation Act, 1961 . The preamble was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1891 . This section was repealed by the Schedule to
15996-620: Was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice , which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". Many jurisdictions within the Commonwealth (e.g. Singapore, Ontario, and the United Kingdom ) have enacted legislation to: Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the Defamation Act 2013 . Defamation in Indian tort law largely resembles that of England and Wales . Indian courts have endorsed
16125-599: Was introduced by the state of New South Wales in 2003, and then adopted nationwide in 2006. By contrast, Canadian law grants private corporations substantially the same right to sue for defamation as individuals possess. Since 2013, English law charts a middle course, allowing private corporations to sue for defamation, but requiring them to prove that the defamation caused both serious harm and serious financial loss, which individual plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate. Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law (i.e. most of Southern Africa, Indonesia, Suriname, and
16254-423: Was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although punitive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to
16383-452: Was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Supreme Court of the United States overruled a state court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what The Times printed
16512-571: Was personally corrupt. Once it is shown that a statement was published, and that it has a defamatory meaning, that statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant is able to raise a defence to his defamatory act. Under English law, because companies are legal persons they can sue on the basis of libel the same as natural persons. Cases supporting this principle go as far back as the 19th century, such as South Hetton Coal Co. Ltd. v. North Eastern News Ass'n Ltd. [1894], and extend to more recent cases such as Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion [1972] and
16641-452: Was possible most people would not know why he was making such a statement. A defence of fair comment can fail if the defendant shows malice, as in Thomas v Bradbury, Agnew & Co. (1906); the defendant not only criticised the claimant's book but made many personal slurs against the author, invalidating the defence. The Defamation Act 2013 replaced the common law defence of fair comment with
#822177