Editing Defamation (section)

==Defamation as a crime==
{{See also|Defamatory libel}}
{{Criminal law}}

In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as a criminal offence and provide for penalties as such. [[Article 19]], a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.article19.org/defamation/map.html |title=Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws |publisher=Article19.org |access-date=2010-09-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111103022208/http://www.article19.org/defamation/map.html |archive-date=2011-11-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref> charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state.<ref>{{dead link|date=June 2020}}[[ARTICLE 19]] [http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/overview.html statements] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418225239/http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/overview.html |date=18 April 2009 }} on criminalised defamation</ref>

There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States, criminal defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states ([[Idaho]], [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]], [[Nevada]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Utah]]) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead.<ref>[http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH48SECT18-4801.htm Idaho Code § 18-4801] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001092649/http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH48SECT18-4801.htm |date=2009-10-01 }}, [http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78544 Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110704213050/http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78544 |date=2011-07-04 }}, [http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec510 Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510], and ''No Place in the Law: The Ignominy of Criminal Libel in American Jurisprudence'' by Gregory C. Lisby, 9 Comm. L. & Pol'y 433 footnote 386.</ref>

The [[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]] (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of the [[Commonwealth of Independent States]], America, and Canada.<ref name="OSCE Report 2005"/>

Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of ''R v Orme and Nutt'' (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of the case told that the jury believed that "where a writing ... inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel."<ref>''R v Orme and Nutt'', 1700</ref>{{dubious|R v Orme & Nutt|date=December 2024}} This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify the exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel.

Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is ''King v. Osborne'' (1732). In this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews". The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had a child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed."<ref>''King v. Osborne'', 1732
</ref>{{nonspecific|reason=Need the report this quotation is from. The report 25 ER 584 is on CommonLII but is not a report of the judgment, only of the grant of information, and does not contain this passage|date=December 2024}} Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of the crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Kallgren|first=Edward|year=1953|title=Group Libel|journal=California Law Review|volume=41|issue=2|pages=290–299|jstor=3478081|doi=10.2307/3478081}}</ref> For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts.

In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions, criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, [[sedition]], false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to [[criminal libel]] actions. The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries.

===Criticism===

While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation, criminal defamation is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict [[freedom of expression]]. Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as the [[Council of Europe]] and [[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]], have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation.<ref>{{cite web |first=Ilia |last=Dohel |url=http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/10/article1 |title=IRIS 2006–10:2/1: Ilia Dohel, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Representative on Freedom of the Media: Report on Achievements in the Decriminalization of Defamation |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130120065046/http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/10/article1 |archive-date=2013-01-20 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1577.htm |title=PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation |publisher=Assembly of the Council of Europe |date=2007-10-04 |access-date=2010-09-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100710235112/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1577.htm |archive-date=2010-07-10 }}</ref> The freedom of expression advocacy group [[Article 19]] opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law.<ref name=article19OHCHR/> The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was ''[[Lingens v. Austria]]'' (1986).