Talk:Defamation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.

???

This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.

Top

This article has been assessed as top-importance on the assessment scale.

Journalism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

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 Wikipedia: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 -- 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)

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

[edit] 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. — 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Libel. --Kgf0 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See Communications Decency Act.Cuthbert11 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)[2]. 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"^[1].

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Some minor questions/issues

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.
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 {{Journalism}}.
I note that the {{TortLaw-I}} 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Little...?

Any explanation of WHY libel is derived from "libellus", EG. What a "little book" has to do with smearing people's reputations? 68.39.174.238 08:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

provided explanatory cites -- Boracay Bill 10:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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....

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".
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 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.).

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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:",

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)