Legal Slandering

English law allows defamation actions to be brought in the High Court for published statements purportedly defamatory of a named or identifiable person or individual (under English law, companies are legal persons and can bring an action for defamation[106][107][108]) in a way that causes them a loss in their business or profession. or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. Admissible defences are justification (the veracity of the statement), fair comment (if the statement was an opinion that a reasonable person might have had), absolute privilege (if the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or if they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest) and relative privilege (if freedom of expression is presumed to outweigh the protection of reputation, but not to the extent that absolute immunity is granted). [109] An offer of redress is an obstacle to litigation. A defamatory statement is considered false unless the defendant can prove its truthfulness. In addition, to obtain compensation, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowingly lying or reckless disregard for the truth). [ref. necessary] An individual only has to prove negligence (not with due diligence) to collect damages. [ref. needed] In order to collect punitive damages, all persons must prove actual malice.

Intentionally false accusations of defamation, as with any other crime, lead to the crime of defamation (Article 368 of the Penal Code), which is defined in the Italian legal system as the crime falsely accusing before the authorities of a crime he did not commit. In the Netherlands, defamation is usually the subject of a civil action before the district court. Article 167 of Book 6 of the Civil Code provides: “If a person is liable to another person under this article because of the incorrect or misleading publication of information of a factual or misleading nature because of its incompleteness, the court may, on the right of action (legal action) of that other person, order the aggrieved party to publish a correction in the manner it determines. ». If the court issues an interim injunction, the defendant is usually ordered to suppress the publication or publish a statement of rectification. Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between facts and opinions. Statements made as “facts” are often defamatory defamations. Pure expressions of opinion or opinion are not feasible. Some jurisdictions refuse to accept a legal distinction between facts and opinions. In order to obtain damages in a defamation case, the plaintiff must, first, prove that the statements were “statements of fact or mixed opinions and factual allegations” and, second, that those statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense against defamation is that statements are opinions and are based on the privilege of opinion. One of the most important criteria for distinguishing whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proven true or false in court. If the statement can be proven true or false, the case will be heard by a jury on that basis to determine whether it is true or false.

If the statement cannot be proven to be true or false, the court can dismiss the defamation suit without ever going to a jury to find facts in the case. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of U.S. history, the Supreme Court has not applied the First Amendment to defamation cases involving media defendants. As a result, defamation laws based on the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system have been mixed up in the states. The New York Times Co. v. 1964 Sullivan case radically changed the nature of defamation law in the United States by elevating the element of public officials` guilt to actual malice – that is, public figures could only win a libel case if they could “prove the publisher`s knowledge that the information was false” or that the information had been published “with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not.” [132] Some states have legal privileges that protect fair commentary on public trials.

For example, in California, you have the right to “make a fair and truthful report or communication in a public newspaper, about (A) a legal process, (B) legislative or (C) another official process, or (D) anything said in the same proceeding, or (E) an accusation or complaint being investigated by a person to a public official. upon complaint from whom an arrest warrant has been issued. This provision was applied to publication on an online forum, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also apply to blogs. California`s privilege also extends to fair and truthful records of public meetings when publication of the offending matter was in the public interest. Also known as verbal or verbal defamation, defamation is the legal term for the act of damaging a person`s reputation by telling one or more other people something false and harmful about that person. Defamation can be the basis of a lawsuit and is considered a reprehensible civil act (i.e. a tort). In People v.

Edmonson (1930), the court also dismissed allegations of a clear case of collective defamation. In this case, the accused was charged with defamation against the Jewish community. The judge sided with the accused, writing that “such an indictment cannot be sustained under the laws of this state, and that no such charge based on a defamatory case directed against such an important group or community as `all persons of the Jewish religion` has ever been sustained in this or any other jurisdiction.” The judge went on to say: “Given the number of forms of religion that might consider themselves defamed and seek redress where our laws have been so extensive, and when we think about how our courts might be compelled to the position of arbiters of religious truth in such a case, It is obvious that more would be lost. what could be gained by attempting to change the good name of a religion through recourse to criminal law?” [178] In this case, the judge finds that it would be unreasonable to expect the courts to assume the responsibility of deciding whether statements made against a religion are defamatory or not. While class defamation generally favored Osborne Holding prior to the Beauharnais case, there is also a well-documented record of U.S. courts in a position closer to that of Orme and Nutt Holding. In many jurisdictions, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as facts must be proven false to be defamatory or defamatory. [ref. needed] Proving that negative statements about publicity are true is often the best defense against defamation or defamation lawsuits. Expressions of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely have to use a different type of defence. However, there are dangers associated with the defence of justification; If the defendant defames the plaintiff and then pursues the defense of the truth and fails, it can be said that he has aggravated the damage. As far as procedure is concerned, the judgment on the legality of evidence becomes less relevant.

[89] In Brazil, defamation is a crime described as either “defamation” (three months to one year in prison, plus a fine; Article 139 of the Criminal Code), “defamation” (six months to two years` imprisonment, plus a fine; Article 138 of the Criminal Code) and/or “violation” (one to six months` imprisonment or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties if the offence is committed in public (Article 141, paragraph III) or against an official in the normal performance of his duties. Incitement to hatred and violence is also provided for in the Criminal Code (incitement to crime, art. 286). In addition, acts of defamation in situations such as intimidation or moral coercion also fall under the offences of “unlawful coercion” (article 146 of the Criminal Code) and “arbitrary exercise of discretion” (article 345 of the Criminal Code), defined as an offence against the law as a vigilante. [112] From a purely legal point of view, defamatory statements are not considered defamation if they are not properly published. Unfortunately, in the context of Internet communication, the term “published” legally means for malicious bloggers that only one person must read the offending blog in question. In South Korea, true and false statements can be considered defamation. Any statement made with the intent to damage another person`s reputation may be considered illegal, and defendants may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment of up to seven years.

[58] If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory categories per se or requires external facts, it is considered defamatory per quod. Unlike defamation cases per se, defamation per quod requires the plaintiff to claim and prove special damages (also called “special damages” by some courts). The term “special damage” or “special damage” is a legal term in the art of defamation law that means the loss of something of real economic or financial value. In other words, a plaintiff who invokes a defamation claim must be able to concretely demonstrate how the defamation caused a concrete and quantifiable loss of money, such as a commission from a lost sale or wages from a loss of employment.