6 ms·

Is it true in any first world countries? As far as I am aware publishing anything that is true is always fair game. The very definition of libel (and slander) i

by Fezzik 6y ago

Is it true in any first world countries? As far as I am aware publishing anything that is true is always fair game. The very definition of libel (and slander) is that something untrue has been published or said. I’m not aware of a first world/non-dictatorship that treats either libel or slander as a crime or where “it’s true” is not a defense [in a civil case]. This is a good article on the history of the issue: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/941/criminal-libel Edit: added the [].

cortesoft 6y ago
While truth is still a defense, in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant; this means that if you are accused of libel or slander in the UK, you have to prove that what you said is true in order to defend yourself. This can be very difficult; for example, how would your PROVE a hotel clerk said certain things to you? In the US, the burden of proof is on the person suing for libel; they have to prove that what was said is false. So in the UK, yes truth is a defense... but you can still be telling the truth and unable to prove it, which makes it not much help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’ll note that the UK has notoriously terrible defamation laws. They’re so bad that Congress passed a law to make defamation rulings from the UK unenforceable in America, just to stop the libel tourism.
  - rwmj 6y ago
    Only in NI. In GB the law was reformed in 2013 so it's now not so bad.
gamblor956 6y ago
It's generally true in most countries, since libel laws extend to keeping private matters private since many things can damage a person's reputation even if they are true. For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish. In the US, the publication of private matters is a separate tort, invasion of privacy. For IOP, truth is not a defense. Or another way of looking at it: libel is a narrower tort in the US than it is in the rest of the world.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  > For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish What case was this? Are you sure you're not talking about the Max Mosley (the former racing driver/FIA boss) case against News Group? Because that was a breach of privacy case, not a defamation one.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, the other case happened around the same time or earlier but involved a member of the House of Lords with a fetish for Nazi-themed swingers' orgies. It was a huge deal for a few weeks, and then it disappeared. I only remember it because my Torts professor brought it up in class during the defamation lecture as an example of the differences between US and UK defamation law.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the UK. And pretty much everywhere else in Europe, AFAIK. Some European countries do have quite strict privacy laws, so a newspaper which obtained the material in a questionable way might have to be cautious (see the News International hacking scandal, for instance).
narag 6y ago
Is it true in any first world countries? There are two clearly distinct legal traditions: the common law in the anglo countries and civil law in the rest. Also USA and UK seem to have very different and each of them unique treatment in this matter. So it's not a question of first world countries vs the rest. It's more of a USA vs UK vs the rest of democratic countries, not sure where other Commonwealth countries fall. Edit: I feel I wasn't clear. Civil law countries mostly adhere to ancient legal doctrine, some coming from Roman Empire, some from middle ages tradition, some from Bonaparte, some from German theoreticians. This corpus is pretty consistent, grown through statutes, while common law tend to develop idiosyncratic variants following practice in every country.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  The UK and USA both have common law systems, where judges have the freedom to establish precedence in regards to matters of law. I believe most of continental Europe operates on civil law systems where judges have much less room for interpretation. On the matter of defamation the US is quite different from everywhere else though, because of the 1st amendment, and the 'actual malice' standards applied to 'public figures' in defamation cases. The confounding factors in the EU are the privacy clauses in the European Convention on Human Rights, so you see cases that would be related to defamation elsewhere being litigated on privacy in the EU.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems...
  - narag 6y ago
    That's a great visualization! Not only it represents a lot of information, but it shows the nuances, like the huge influence of Napoleon or the Germans.
monadic2 6y ago
Courts are not built to determine the truth, though, they're built to come to a verdict. In practice there are many countries that restrict the speech against the rich, including here in the US (ie the whole Peter Thiel/gawker debacle). I don't want to misstate the case, though, you are clearly much safer from these laws here in the US than in other ex british colonies. Also, what does the cold war alignment have to do with this?
- IncRnd 6y ago
  First, Second, and Third world country designations originated as US-aligned, Soviet-aligned, and non-aligned. However, the meanings of these have changed from political designations to economic designationms.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Ahh, so i take it russia, Brazil, and China are all first world countries now? Economically, american citizens have much lower access to basic social services and we let people die on the street with vacant housing in the neighborhood. Does that make us second world or third world?
celticninja 6y ago
There are nuances though, some around whether it was believed at the time, although this usually means a later retraction (a solution here).
stubish 6y ago
A major difference is if defamation is considered a civil or criminal matter. In some countries such as Thailand, a defamation claim is a criminal matter, which can get you arrested, jailed etc., before going in front of a judge. It can and is used as a weapon, often in politics. In some other countries, a defamation claim first needs to be judged valid before arrest.

by Fezzik 6y ago

cortesoft 6y ago

While truth is still a defense, in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant; this means that if you are accused of libel or slander in the UK, you have to prove that what you said is true in order to defend yourself. This can be very difficult; for example, how would your PROVE a hotel clerk said certain things to you? In the US, the burden of proof is on the person suing for libel; they have to prove that what was said is false. So in the UK, yes truth is a defense... but you can still be telling the truth and unable to prove it, which makes it not much help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

ashtonkem 6y ago
I’ll note that the UK has notoriously terrible defamation laws. They’re so bad that Congress passed a law to make defamation rulings from the UK unenforceable in America, just to stop the libel tourism.
- rwmj 6y ago
  Only in NI. In GB the law was reformed in 2013 so it's now not so bad.

gamblor956 6y ago

It's generally true in most countries, since libel laws extend to keeping private matters private since many things can damage a person's reputation even if they are true. For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish. In the US, the publication of private matters is a separate tort, invasion of privacy. For IOP, truth is not a defense. Or another way of looking at it: libel is a narrower tort in the US than it is in the rest of the world.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
> For example, a British Lord's Nazi fetish What case was this? Are you sure you're not talking about the Max Mosley (the former racing driver/FIA boss) case against News Group? Because that was a breach of privacy case, not a defamation one.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, the other case happened around the same time or earlier but involved a member of the House of Lords with a fetish for Nazi-themed swingers' orgies. It was a huge deal for a few weeks, and then it disappeared. I only remember it because my Torts professor brought it up in class during the defamation lecture as an example of the differences between US and UK defamation law.
rsynnott 6y ago
Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the UK. And pretty much everywhere else in Europe, AFAIK. Some European countries do have quite strict privacy laws, so a newspaper which obtained the material in a questionable way might have to be cautious (see the News International hacking scandal, for instance).

narag 6y ago

Is it true in any first world countries? There are two clearly distinct legal traditions: the common law in the anglo countries and civil law in the rest. Also USA and UK seem to have very different and each of them unique treatment in this matter. So it's not a question of first world countries vs the rest. It's more of a USA vs UK vs the rest of democratic countries, not sure where other Commonwealth countries fall. Edit: I feel I wasn't clear. Civil law countries mostly adhere to ancient legal doctrine, some coming from Roman Empire, some from middle ages tradition, some from Bonaparte, some from German theoreticians. This corpus is pretty consistent, grown through statutes, while common law tend to develop idiosyncratic variants following practice in every country.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
The UK and USA both have common law systems, where judges have the freedom to establish precedence in regards to matters of law. I believe most of continental Europe operates on civil law systems where judges have much less room for interpretation. On the matter of defamation the US is quite different from everywhere else though, because of the 1st amendment, and the 'actual malice' standards applied to 'public figures' in defamation cases. The confounding factors in the EU are the privacy clauses in the European Convention on Human Rights, so you see cases that would be related to defamation elsewhere being litigated on privacy in the EU.
082349872349872 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems...
- narag 6y ago
  That's a great visualization! Not only it represents a lot of information, but it shows the nuances, like the huge influence of Napoleon or the Germans.

monadic2 6y ago

Courts are not built to determine the truth, though, they're built to come to a verdict. In practice there are many countries that restrict the speech against the rich, including here in the US (ie the whole Peter Thiel/gawker debacle). I don't want to misstate the case, though, you are clearly much safer from these laws here in the US than in other ex british colonies. Also, what does the cold war alignment have to do with this?

IncRnd 6y ago
First, Second, and Third world country designations originated as US-aligned, Soviet-aligned, and non-aligned. However, the meanings of these have changed from political designations to economic designationms.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Ahh, so i take it russia, Brazil, and China are all first world countries now? Economically, american citizens have much lower access to basic social services and we let people die on the street with vacant housing in the neighborhood. Does that make us second world or third world?

celticninja 6y ago

There are nuances though, some around whether it was believed at the time, although this usually means a later retraction (a solution here).

stubish 6y ago

A major difference is if defamation is considered a civil or criminal matter. In some countries such as Thailand, a defamation claim is a criminal matter, which can get you arrested, jailed etc., before going in front of a judge. It can and is used as a weapon, often in politics. In some other countries, a defamation claim first needs to be judged valid before arrest.