4 ms·

My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel. You are saying this isn’t the case in some

by cal85 4y ago

My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel. You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?

belorn 4y ago
It would surprise me if it is called libel in those countries. The more likely translation would be defamation. In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.
solardev 4y ago
Even in the US it depends on jurisdiction: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/federal-court-truth-is-not-a-complete-defense-for https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/feder... And if it affects the state, truth wasn't/isn't always a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1 And in other legal systems, the value of truth depends on whether the case is a private or public one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1
Root_Denied 4y ago
Look at the recent reporting around Shinzo Abe's death in Japan for a really good example of different libel laws. In Japan the burden of proof lies with the entity publishing the information. A lot of the initial headlines were things like "Abe collapses at rally, shots heard" even though the article itself had a video of him getting shot and then falling down. Others just had a headline that equated to "Abe collapses during rally, currently in critical condition" without even mentioning a shooter. Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/ https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/

by cal85 4y ago

belorn 4y ago

It would surprise me if it is called libel in those countries. The more likely translation would be defamation. In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.

solardev 4y ago

Even in the US it depends on jurisdiction: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/federal-court-truth-is-not-a-complete-defense-for https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/feder... And if it affects the state, truth wasn't/isn't always a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1 And in other legal systems, the value of truth depends on whether the case is a private or public one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1

Root_Denied 4y ago

Look at the recent reporting around Shinzo Abe's death in Japan for a really good example of different libel laws. In Japan the burden of proof lies with the entity publishing the information. A lot of the initial headlines were things like "Abe collapses at rally, shots heard" even though the article itself had a video of him getting shot and then falling down. Others just had a headline that equated to "Abe collapses during rally, currently in critical condition" without even mentioning a shooter. Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/ https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/