Editing Defamation (section)

==History==
Defamation law has a long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies, defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law.{{citation needed |date=August 2023}}

[[Roman law]] was 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 punitive 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 is derived the modern use of the word ''libel''; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or ''[[pasquil]]s'', the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false.{{citation needed |date=August 2023}}

The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: "''qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo.''"<ref>''[[Corpus Juris Civilis|Digest]]'' [http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 47. 10. 15. 2.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091207210601/http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 |date=7 December 2009 }}</ref> In this case, the offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting. According to [[Ulpian]], not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of [[Marcus Antistius Labeo|Labeo]], he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ("''adversus bonos mores huius civitatis''") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ("''quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret''") the person exposed thereto.<ref>''Digest'' [http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 47. 10. 15. 3–6.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091207210601/http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 |date=7 December 2009 }}</ref> Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an ''actio injurarum''.<ref>''Digest'' [http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 47. 10. 15. 25.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091207210601/http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Corpus/d-47.htm#10 |date=7 December 2009 }}</ref> In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made, but, even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian/Book%209PDF/Book9-36.pdf |title=Book 9, Title 36. |access-date=2010-09-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515075030/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume%26justinian/Book%209PDF/Book9-36.pdf |archive-date=15 May 2011 }}</ref> The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the content of the imputation, 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.{{citation needed |date=August 2023}}

In [[Anglo-Saxon England]], whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions,{{citation needed |date=August 2023}} slander was punished by cutting out the tongue.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hjI3BAAAQBAJ&q=mutilation+tongue+slander+mutilation+england&pg=PA150 |title=Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England |page=150|isbn=9781843839187 |last1=Gates |first1=Jay Paul |last2=Marafioti |first2=Nicole |year=2014 |publisher=Boydell & Brewer }}</ref> Historically, while defamation of a commoner in England was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a member of the English [[aristocracy]] was called ''scandalum magnatum,'' literally "the scandal of magnates".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lassiter|first=John C.|date=1978|title=Defamation of Peers: The Rise and Decline of the Action for ''Scandalum Magnatum'', 1497-1773|journal=The American Journal of Legal History|volume=22|issue=3|pages=216–236|doi=10.2307/845182|jstor=845182}}</ref>