From a strictly legal point of view, defamatory statements are not considered defamatory if they are not properly published. Unfortunately for ill-intentioned bloggers, the term “published” in the context of Internet communication legally means that only one person must read the offending blog in question. Defamation (sometimes called defamation, denigration, defamation, defamation or defamation) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another person that unjustifiably damages their reputation and is usually a misdemeanor or felony. [1] In several countries, including South Korea[2] and Sweden[3], as well as in the US state of Louisiana[4], transmitting a truthful statement may also be considered defamation. n. Verbal defamation, in which someone tells one or more people the falsehood about another that harms the reputation of the defamed person. Defamation is a civil injustice (tort) and can be the basis of a lawsuit. Compensation (consideration for value) for defamation may be limited to actual (special) damages, except in cases of malicious intent, as such damages are generally difficult to specify and more difficult to prove. Certain statements, such as a false accusation of having committed a crime, having an abominable illness or not being able to exercise one`s profession, are treated as defamation in itself, since the damages and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damages on the part of the injured person. Words spoken on television or radio on radio are treated as slander (written slander) and not as a slander of the theory that broadcasting reaches a wide audience, as if nothing more than printed publications.
The Hebrew term lashon hara is the halachic term for derogatory talk about another person. [199] Lashon hara differs from defamation in that it focuses on the use of truthful speech for false purposes rather than lying and harm. In contrast, hotzaat shem ra (“spreading a bad reputation”), also called hotzaat diba, consists of false remarks and can be translated as “slander” or “slander”. Hotzaat shem ra is worse and therefore a more serious sin than lashon hara. [199] 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. 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. German law does not distinguish between defamation and defamation. Since 2006, German defamation lawsuits have multiplied. [82] The relevant criminal offences of the German Criminal Code are Article 90 (denigration of the Federal President), Article 90a (denigration of the Federal State and its symbols), Article 90b (unconstitutional denigration of constitutional bodies), Article 185 (“insult”), Article 186 (defamation), Article 187 (intentional defamation), Article 188 (political defamation punishable by aggravated penalty for violation of Articles 186 and 187), section 189 (denigration of a deceased person), section 192.
(“insult” with true statements). Other articles relating to the prosecution of such offences are article 190 (criminal conviction as proof of the truth), article 193 (no defamation in pursuit of legitimate interests), article 194 (request for prosecution under these paragraphs), article 199 (mutual insult may go unpunished) and article 200 (method of proclamation). Article 188 has been criticized for giving certain public figures additional protection from criticism. In Brazil, defamation is a crime that can be qualified as “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.