Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault  · Battery  · False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)
Consent  · Necessity  · Self defense
Property torts
Trespass  · Conversion
Detinue  · Replevin  · Trover
Dignitary torts
Defamation  · Invasion of privacy
Breach of confidence  · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud  · Tortious interference
Conspiracy  · Restraint of trade
Nuisance
Public nuisance  · Rylands v. Fletcher
Negligence
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Specific kinds of negligence
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED)
In employment  · Entrustment
Malpractice
Duty to visitors
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Strict liability torts
Product liability  · Ultrahazardous activity
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative and contributory negligence
Last clear chance  · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability  · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Damages  · Injunction
Common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive An intentional tort is a category of Torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the Tortfeasor. For other uses of the term "Assault" please see Assault (disambiguation. At Common law, battery is the Tort of intentionally (or in Australia, negligently and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive False imprisonment is a Tort, and possibly a Crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority Intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED) is a Tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible defence (an Excuse or justification against civil or criminal liability In Tort common law the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another The right of self-defense (also called alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their Trespass (Fr trespas a crime properly a stepping across from Lat In Law, conversion is an intentional Tort to Personal property (same as Chattel) where defendant's unjustified willful interference with the In Tort law, detinue is an action for the wrongful detention of goods Replevin is an Anglo - French Law term It is the noun form of the verb "replevy" (from Old French "replevir" derived from "plevir" Trover is a form of lawsuit in Common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property Privacy law is the area of law concerning the protection and preservation of the Privacy rights of individuals The Tort of breach of confidence, is a Common law tort that protects private information that is conveyed in confidence Abuse of process is a Common law intentional Tort. It is to be distinguished from Malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the Malicious prosecution is a Common law intentional Tort, while like the tort of Abuse of process, its elements include (1 intentionally (and At Common law, alienation of affections is a Tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the Marriage Economic torts are Torts that provide the Common law rules on liability for the infliction of Pure economic loss, such as interference with economic or business In the broadest sense a fraud is a Deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual Tortious interference, in the Common law of Tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the Plaintiff 's Contractual or other business relationships A civil conspiracy or Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective Restraint of trade is a Common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business Nuisance (through Fr noisance nuisance from Lat nocere to hurt is a Common law Tort. For the law of Tort, see Nuisance In the English Criminal law, public nuisance is a class of Common law offence Rylands v Fletcher ( 1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a landmark English legal case in which the Court of the Exchequer Chamber first applied the doctrine Negligence (Lat negligentia from negligere to neglect literally "not to pick up" is a legal concept in the Common law legal systems usually used to In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a reasonable Standard of care while performing any acts For the English law, see Standard of care in English law. In Tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution For English law, see Causation in English law In the Law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself In the United States, the calculus of negligence, or "Hand rule" is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether The rescue doctrine of the Law of Torts holds that if a Tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger the tortfeasor is A duty to rescue is a concept in Tort law that arises in a narrow number of cases describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come The Tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States Jurisdictions Negligence in employment encompasses several causes of action in Tort law which arise where an Employer is held liable for Negligence of an Employee Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in Tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor is held liable for Negligence because they negligently provided In Law, malpractice is a type of negligence in which the Misfeasance, Malfeasance or Nonfeasance of a Professional, under a duty This article is about the Common law concept of a trespasser for the computer game see Jurassic Park Trespasser In the Law of This article is about the Common law concept of a licensee see here for information on Licenses A licensee is a term used In the Law of Torts an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public or one who's invited to the land Attractive nuisance redirects here For the album see Attractive Nuisance. Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers distributors suppliers retailers and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries An ultrahazardous activity in the Common law of Torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held Strictly liable In the United States, comparative negligence is a partial defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon Contributory negligence is a Common law defense to a claim based on negligence an action in Tort. The last clear chance is a doctrine in the Law of Torts that is employed in Contributory negligence jurisdictions The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a Legal doctrine used in both Tort law and Criminal law that holds an individual liable This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation for vicarious liability in criminal law see Vicarious liability (criminal. Volenti non fit injuria ( Latin: "to a willing person no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents" is a Common law In civil law, especially Contract law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio is the doctrine that an action may not be founded on illegality In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful An injunction is an Equitable remedy in the form of a Court order, whereby a party is required to do or interact with in certain ways all right or to refrain from Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law Property law is the area of Law that governs the various forms of Ownership in Real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions In Common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the Testator) regulates the rights of others over his or her Property The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of Law which governs the management of personal affairs and the Disposition of Property of The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. ^[1] "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively "^[2]

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being. " False light " is a Legal term that refers to a Tort concerning Privacy that is similar to the tort of Defamation. A plaintiff ( Π in Legal shorthand) also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a Lawsuit MIND ( Moving In New Directions) (est 1975 is an alternative education high school in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. An emotion is a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings thoughts and behaviours "^[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. To publish is to make content Publicly known. The term is most frequently applied to the distribution of text or images on paper or to the placing of content Information as a concept has a diversity of meanings from everyday usage to technical settings See False for other meanings of false FALSE is an esoteric programming language designed by Wouter van Oortmerssen in If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred. Communication is the process of conveying information from a sender to a receiver with the use of a medium in which the communicated information is understood the same way The term legal technicality is a casual or Colloquial phrase referring to a technical aspect of law Deception (also called beguilement or subterfuge) is the act of convincing another to believe Information that is not true or not the whole truth as in ^[3]

Contents 1 History 2 Types of torts 2.1 Slander and libel 2.2 Criminal defamation 3 Defenses 3.1 Truth 3.2 Privilege and malice 3.3 Other defenses 3.4 Public figure doctrine (absence of malice) 4 Defamation and freedom of speech 5 Defamation laws by jurisdiction 5.1 Europe 5.1.1 England 5.1.2 Scotland 5.1.3 Germany 5.2 United States 5.3 Singapore 5.4 Australia 5.5 Canada 5.6 Religious law 6 Related torts 7 References 8 External links 9 See also

History

In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. Roman law is the legal system of Ancient Rome. As used in the West the term commonly refers to legal developments prior to the Roman/Byzantine state's adopting The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, 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. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.

The law thus 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 was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive 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 the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our 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 matter contained in them were true or false. Pasquinade refers to an anonymous Lampoon, whether in verse or in prose

Types of torts

Slander and libel

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel^[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. ^[6] 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, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

Criminal defamation

Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps ^[7] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state.

In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912. Errico Malatesta ( December 14, 1853 July 22, 1932) was an Italian anarcho-communist and Insurrectionary anarchist

In Canada, though the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate. ^[8]

In Zimbabwe, "insulting the President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offense. See also Great Zimbabwe National Monument. For information about the March and June 2008 presidential elections see Zimbabwean presidential election This is about the law term For other uses see Sedition (disambiguation Sedition is a term of Law which refers to covert conduct ^[9]

Defenses

Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

Truth

In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Generally a fact is defined as something that is true something that actually exists or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation An opinion is a Person 's Ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of or the truth of which is thought unimportant to Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense. The Philippines ( Filipino: Pilipinas, officially known as the Republic of the Philippines (fil ''Republika ng Pilipinas'' RP ^[10] Some U. S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive. " ^[11]

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. The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of Defamation actions ( Libel and Slander) as well as Invasion of privacy. Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public. ^{[12] [13]}

See also: Substantial truth

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted. Substantial truth is a Legal doctrine affecting Libel and Slander laws in Common law jurisdictions such as the US or the UK

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

• "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries). Parliamentary privilege, also known as absolute privilege, is a legal mechanism employed within the legislative bodies of countries whose Constitutions are based on
• "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Other defenses

Defenses to claims of defamation include:

• Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. The meaning of the word truth extends from Honesty, Good faith, and Sincerity in general to agreement with Fact or Reality Absolute defense is a legal concept for a factual circumstance or argument that if proven will end the litigation in favor of the defendant The United States of America —commonly referred to as the Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Country to "Dominion of Canada" or "Canadian Federation" or anything else please read the Talk Page In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
• Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. A mistake of fact may sometimes offer exculpation (as in Excuse) by allowing a criminal Defendant some relief from liability for having broken the The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
• Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. A privilege &mdashetymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual&mdashis a special Entitlement or immunity granted by a government A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a Crime or dramatic event through their Senses (e "Testify" redirects here For other uses see Testify (disambiguation and Testimony (disambiguation. A court is a forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour administrative and criminal Justice under its A legislature is a type of representative Deliberative assembly with the power to create amend and change Laws The law created by a legislature is called Legislation These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
• Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. An opinion is a Person 's Ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of or the truth of which is thought unimportant to If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Falsifiability (or "refutability" is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
• Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected. Fair comment is a Legal term for a Common law defense in Defamation cases ( Libel or Slander) In Mathematical logic, a Logical system has the soundness property If and only if its Inference rules prove only formulas that are The reasonable person standard is often used legal term that originated in the development of the Common law.
• Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement. Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible defence (an Excuse or justification against civil or criminal liability A petitioner is a Person who pleads with a governmental institution for a Legal remedy or a redress of grievances
• Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. A person who is found to have published a defamatory statement may avail to a defence of innocent dissemination where it can be shown that they had no knowledge of the defamatory A defendant or defender ( Δ in Legal shorthand) is any party who is required to answer the Complaint of a Plaintiff The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Negligence (Lat negligentia from negligere to neglect literally "not to pick up" is a legal concept in the Common law legal systems usually used to Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
• Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e. g. , the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person has a bad reputation before the libel, hence there was no further damages by the statement. Reputation is the opinion (more technically a social evaluation of the public toward a Person, a group of people, or an Organization. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance" Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.

Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. 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 a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice). New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254 ( 1964) was a United States Supreme Court case which established the Actual malice standard Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters An official is someone who holds an office (function or mandate, regardless whether it carries an actual working space with it in an Organisation or Actual malice in United States Law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the ^[14]

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

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. The Associated Press ( AP) is an American News agency. The AP is a Cooperative owned by its contributing Newspapers radio Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. Insurance, in Law and Economics, is a form of Risk management primarily used to hedge against the Risk of a contingent loss

Defamation and freedom of speech

Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without Censorship or Limitation. Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable harmful or sensitive as determined by a censor Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others^[15].

Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue. ^[16]

There is a broader consensus against laws which criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize defamation. The Council of Europe (Conseil de l'Europe is the oldest International organisation working towards European integration, being founded in 1949 ^[17][18] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986). Lingens v Austria (8 EHRR 407 was a 1986 European Court of Human Rights case that placed restrictions on libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of Article

Defamation laws by jurisdiction

Europe

England

Main article: English defamation law

Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended The United States of America —commonly referred to as the Ireland ( Irish: Éire, ˈeːrʲə is a country in north-western Europe. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. Edward I (17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307 popularly known as Longshanks, was a King of England who achieved historical fame by conquering large parts of Wales and almost The first fully-reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I. James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625 was King of Scotland as James VI, and King of England and King of Ireland as James From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies 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 or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

Scotland

In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions which base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. The equivalent of the defence of justification is "veritas".

Germany

In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. Germany is a leader in Europe in enforcement of its defamation law,, and lawsuits are increasing. ^[19] The relevant sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), §190 (Defamation by means of a non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.

United States

Main article: United States defamation law

The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. The origins of United States Defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some In this article the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans" with occasional references to "Patriots" John Peter Zenger ( October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German-born American printer, Publisher, editor (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee. ) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. 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, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254 ( 1964) was a United States Supreme Court case which established the Actual malice standard Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.

Most states recognize 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 the statement was defamatory.

Singapore

Singapore has perhaps the world's strongest libel laws. The country's leaders have clearly indicated to the public that libel, as they choose to define it from time to time, on the Internet will not be tolerated and that those they deem responsible will be severely punished. On March 6, 1996, the government made providers and publishers liable for the content placed on the Internet. Even the owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments. ^[20]

In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million (approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected. ^[21]

Australia

Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by an implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature. For a topic outline on this subject see List of basic Australia topics. As with England, Australia defines slander as communicating false or insulting words about someone directly or indirectly, verbally or through script.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. Events 1041 - Empress Zoe of Byzantium elevates her adoptive son to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire as Michael V See also 2002 (disambiguation Year 2002 ( MMII) was a Common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick was an Internet Defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on December 10 The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in his or her Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often (although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in England^[22]) said to be the first of its kind; the case was subsequently settled.

Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision. ^[23] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.

Controversial uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company.

Canada

Main article: Canadian defamation law

As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions Canada also follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English Country to "Dominion of Canada" or "Canadian Federation" or anything else please read the Talk Page Quebec (kwɨˈbɛk At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. ^[24] 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), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto 2 SCR 1130 was a Libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court The Supreme Court of Canada ( French: Cour suprême du Canada) is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal in the Canadian v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail him or herself to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a causal connection between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true. ^[25]

Religious law

Main articles: Lashon hara and Detraction

Related torts

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "ourageousness", or "convicium," involving the making of 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". Lashon hara (or Loshon hora) ( Hebrew לשון הרע "evil tongue" is the prohibition in Jewish Law of telling Gossip Detraction is defined primarily in Roman Catholic theology as the act of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person Intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED) is a Tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress Privacy law is the area of law concerning the protection and preservation of the Privacy rights of individuals Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. " False light " is a Legal term that refers to a Tort concerning Privacy that is similar to the tort of Defamation. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U. S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract," and "negligent misrepresentation. Trademark dilution is a Trademark law concept permitting the owner of a famous trademark to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness "

Criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition, false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions. This is about the law term For other uses see Sedition (disambiguation Sedition is a term of Law which refers to covert conduct

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.

References

External links

• Defamation at the Open Directory Project

See also

• Alienation of affections
• Dignitary torts
• False imprisonment
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)
• Intentional torts
• Invasion of privacy
• Malicious prosecution
• Trespass

The Open Directory Project ( ODP) also known as dmoz (from directory At Common law, alienation of affections is a Tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the Marriage False imprisonment is a Tort, and possibly a Crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority Intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED) is a Tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress An intentional tort is a category of Torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the Tortfeasor. Privacy law is the area of law concerning the protection and preservation of the Privacy rights of individuals Malicious prosecution is a Common law intentional Tort, while like the tort of Abuse of process, its elements include (1 intentionally (and Trespass (Fr trespas a crime properly a stepping across from Lat

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic