Editing Defamation (section)

==Laws by jurisdiction==
{{update |section |date=April 2020}}

===Summary table===
{{table alignment}}
{| class="wikitable collapsible sortable defaultcenter col1left"
|+ Criminal defamation laws by country{{sfn |OSCE Report |2017 |pp=31{{ndash}}33}}{{Dead link|date=November 2024}}
|-
! Country
! General offences
! Special offences
! Custodial sentences
|- 
| {{ALB}} || Yes || No || No
|-
| {{AND}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{ARM}} || No || Unclear || Unclear
|-
| {{AUT}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{AZE}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{BLR}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{BEL}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{BIH}} || No || No || No
|-
| {{BGR}} || Yes || Yes || No
|-
| {{CAN}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{HRV}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{CYP}} || No || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{CZE}} || Yes || No || Yes
|-
| {{DEN}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{EST}} || No || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{FIN}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{FRA}} || Yes || Yes || No
|-
| {{GEO}} || No || Unclear || Unclear
|-
| {{GER}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{GRE}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{HUN}} || Yes || No || Yes
|-
| {{ISL}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{IND}}<ref name="India Penal Code"/> || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{IRL}}<ref name="Ireland Defamation Act 2009"/> || No || No || No
|-
| {{ITA}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{JAP}}<ref name="Japan Penal Code"/> || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{KAZ}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{KGZ}} || No || No || No
|-
| {{LVA}} || Yes || No || Yes
|-
| {{LIE}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{LTU}} || Yes || No || Yes
|-
| {{LUX}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{MLT}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{MDA}} || No || No || No
|-
| {{MCO}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{MNG}} || Yes || Yes || No
|-
| {{MNE}} || No || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{NLD}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{NMK}} || No || Yes || No
|-
| {{NOR}} || No || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{PHL}}<ref name="Philippines Penal Code"/> || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{POL}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{POR}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{ROM}} || No || No || No
|-
| {{RUS}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{SMR}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{SRB}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{SVK}} || Yes || No || Yes
|-
| {{SVN}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{ESP}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{SWE}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{SWI}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{TWN}}<ref name="Taiwan Penal Code"/> || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{TJK}} || No || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{TUR}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{TKM}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{UKR}} || No || No || No
|-
| {{UK}} || No || Yes || No
|-
| {{USA}} || Unclear || No || No
|-
| {{UZB}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|-
| {{VAT}} || Yes || Yes || Yes
|}

===Albania===
According to the Criminal Code of [[Albania]], defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from {{val|40000}} ALL (c. $350) to one million ALL (c. ${{val|8350}}).<ref>Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 1</ref> If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. ${{val|25100}}).<ref>Albanian Penal Code (2017), Art. 120 par. 2</ref> In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1565/file/d46a10bcf55b80aae189eb6840b4.htm/preview |title=Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania – English version |publisher=Legislationline.org |access-date=2010-09-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613054559/http://legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1565/file/d46a10bcf55b80aae189eb6840b4.htm/preview |archive-date=2010-06-13 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P126_3037 |title=European Council – Aperçu des legislations nationales en matière de diffamation et d'injure – English version – Section Albania |publisher=Coe.int |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Argentina===
In [[Argentina]], the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter "Crimes Against Honor" (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as "the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit" (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 [[Argentine peso|pesos]]. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).

He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to three years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd).<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm#16 Argentine Penal Code (official text) – Crimes Against Honor] (Articles 109 to 117-bis)</ref>

===Australia===
{{main |Defamation in Australia}}

Defamation law in [[Australia]] developed primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in ''[[Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]'' (1997).<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|25|1997|litigants=Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company |parallelcite=(1997) 189 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 520 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dixon |first1=Nicolee |title=Research Brief No 2005/14: Uniform Defamation Laws |url=https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/ResearchPublications/ResearchBriefs/2005/200514.pdf |website=Queensland Parliament |publisher=Queensland Parliamentary Library |access-date=6 September 2020 |date=2005}}</ref> In addition to fixing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories, the laws made a number of changes to the common law position, including:
* Abolishing the distinction between libel and slander.<ref name="Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)">{{cite web |url=https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2005-077 |title=Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW) |date=1 January 2006 |website=NSW legislation |publisher=NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office |access-date=8 September 2023}}</ref>{{rp |at=§7}}<ref name=mpearson>{{cite journal |last1=Pearson |first1=Mark |title=A review of Australia's defamation reforms after a year of operation |journal=Australian Journalism Review |date=1 July 2007 |volume=29 |issue=1 |citeseerx=10.1.1.1030.7304 }}</ref>
* Providing new defences including that of triviality, where it is a defence to the publication of a defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.<ref name=mpearson/>
* The defences against defamation may be negated if there is proof the publication was actuated by malice.<ref name="Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)" />{{rp |at=§24}}
* Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see e.g. ''Defamation Act 2005'' (Vic), s 9). Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than in defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Jack Herman |author2=David Flint |url=http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html |title=Australian Press Council – Press Law in Australia |publisher=Presscouncil.org.au |access-date=7 September 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101112041621/http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html |archive-date=12 November 2010 }}</ref>

The 2006 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defence; previously a number of states only allowed a defence of truth with the condition that a public interest or benefit existed. The defendant however still needs to prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true.<ref>{{cite web |author=Australian Law Reform Commission |date=1979 |url=http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html |title=Electronic Frontiers Australia: civil liberties online |publisher=Efa.org.au |access-date=7 September 2010 |archive-date=16 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416223550/https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The law as it currently stands in Australia was summarised in the 2015 case of Duffy v Google by [[Malcolm Blue|Justice Blue]] in the [[Supreme Court of South Australia]]:<ref name="Duffy v Google">{{cite AustLII|SASC|170|2015|litigants=Duffy v Google Inc |pinpoint=158 |courtname=auto |date= 27 October 2015}}</ref>
{{blockquote |text=
The tort can be divided up into the following ingredients:
* the defendant participates in publication to a third party of a body of work;
* the body of work contains a passage alleged to be defamatory;
* the passage conveys an imputation;
* the imputation is about the plaintiff;
* the imputation is damaging to the plaintiff's reputation.
}}

Defences available to defamation defendants include [[absolute privilege]], [[qualified privilege]], justification (truth), honest opinion, publication of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern and triviality.<ref name="hobartlegal.org.au"/>

====Online====
On 10 December 2002, the [[High Court of Australia]] delivered judgment in the Internet defamation case of ''[[Dow Jones v Gutnick]]''.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|56|2002|litigants=Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick |link=Dow Jones v Gutnick |parallelcite=(2002) 210 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 575 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The judgment established that internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates ''Dow Jones v Gutnick'' is ''[[Berezovsky v Michaels]]'' in England.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm |title=Judgments{{snd}}Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals) |date=8 May 2000 |website=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |access-date=7 September 2023}}</ref>

Australia's first [[Twitter]] defamation case to go to trial is believed to be ''Mickle v Farley''. The defendant, former [[Orange High School (New South Wales)|Orange High School]] student Andrew Farley was ordered to pay $105,000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Whitbourn |first1=Michaela |title=The tweet that cost $105,000 |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/the-tweet-that-cost-105000-20140304-341kl.html |access-date=2 March 2019 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=4 March 2014}}</ref>

A more recent case in defamation law was ''Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited'' [2015], heard in the [[Federal Court of Australia]]. This judgment was significant as it demonstrated that tweets, consisting of even as little as three words, can be defamatory, as was held in this case.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|652|2015|litigants=Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

===Austria===
In Austria, the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code. Related criminal offences include "slander and assault" (Article 115), that happens "if a person insults, mocks, mistreats or threatens will ill-treatment another one in public", and yet "malicious falsehood" (Article 297), defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P248_13540 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Austria |publisher=Coe.int |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Azerbaijan===
In [[Azerbaijan]], the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to "500 times the amount of [[list of minimum wages by country|minimum salaries]]", public work for up to 240 hours, correctional work for up to one year, or imprisonment of up to six months. Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime "of grave or very grave nature" (Article 147.2). The crime of insult (Article 148) can lead to a fine of up to 1,000 times the minimum wage, or to the same penalties of defamation for public work, correctional work or imprisonment.
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P281_18801 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Azerbaijan |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1658/file/4b3ff87c005675cfd74058077132.htm/preview |title=Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic (English) |publisher=Legislationline.org |access-date=2010-09-07 |archive-date=13 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813035757/http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1658/file/4b3ff87c005675cfd74058077132.htm/preview |url-status=dead }}</ref>

According to the OSCE report on defamation laws, "Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code".{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=19}}

===Belgium===
In Belgium, crimes against honor are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code, Articles 443 to 453-bis. Someone is guilty of calumny "when law admits [[evidence (law)|proof]] of the alleged fact" and of defamation "when law does not admit this evidence" (Article 443). The penalty is eight days to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine (Article 444). In addition, the crime of "calumnious denunciation" (Article 445) is punished with 15 days to six months in prison, plus a fine. In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) "when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her [[race (classification of human beings)|intended race]], colour of the skin, [[ancestor|ancestry]], [[Nationality|national origin]] or [[ethnic group|ethnicity]], [[nationality]], [[gender]], [[sexual orientation]], [[marital status]], place of birth, age, [[Property|patrimony]], [[belief|philosophical]] or [[religious belief]], present or future health condition, [[disability]], [[first language|native language]], political belief, physical or genetical characteristic, or [[social class|social origin]]".<ref>{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?DETAIL=1867060801%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=2&rech=4&cn=1867060801&table_name=LOI&nm=1867060850&la=F&dt=CODE+PENAL&language=fr&fr=f&choix1=ET&choix2=ET&fromtab=loi_all&trier=promulgation&chercher=t&sql=dt+contains++%27CODE%27%26+%27PENAL%27and+actif+%3D+%27Y%27&tri=dd+AS+RANK+&imgcn.x=41&imgcn.y=12 Belgian Penal Code – Crimes against honour] (see Articles 443 to 453-bis)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P306_20801 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation – Section Belgium (French) |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Brazil===
In [[Brazil]], defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as "defamation" (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), "calumny" (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) or "injury" (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III) or against a state employee because of his regular duties. Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like [[bullying]] or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of "illegal constraint" (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and "arbitrary exercise of discretion" (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a [[vigilante]].<ref>{{in lang|pt}} [http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Decreto-Lei/Del2848compilado.htm Brazilian Penal Code (official text)]</ref>

===Bulgaria===
In [[Bulgaria]], defamation is formally a criminal offence, but the penalty of imprisonment was abolished in 1999. Articles 146 (insult), 147 (criminal defamation) and 148 (public insult) of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P443_34457 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English version) – Section Bulgary |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Canada===
{{main |Canadian defamation law}}

====Civil====
=====Quebec=====
In [[Quebec]], defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France and is presently established by Chapter III, Title 2 of Book One of the ''[[Civil Code of Quebec]]'', which provides that "every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy".<ref>[https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991?langCont=en#ga:l_one-gb:l_two-h1 Book 1, Title 2] of the [[Civil Code of Quebec]]</ref>

To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-îles inc.|link=|year=1994|court=qcca|num=5883|format=canlii|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[1994] RJQ 1811 |date=1994-08-01|courtname=auto|juris=}} {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

====Criminal====
The ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code of Canada]]'' specifies the following as criminal offences:
* [[Defamatory libel]], defined as "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the [[reputation]] of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published",<ref>{{Cite CrC|298}}</ref> receives the same penalty.<ref>{{Cite CrC|301}}</ref>
* A "libel known to be false" is an [[indictable offence]], for which the prison term is a maximum of five years.<ref>{{Cite CrC|300}}</ref>

The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied, but it has been observed that, when treated as an indictable offence, it often appears to arise from statements made against an agent of the Crown, such as a [[police officer]], a [[corrections officer]], or a [[Crown attorney]].<ref>{{cite news|last= Mann|first= Arshy|date= 29 September 2014|title= The trouble with criminal speech|url= http://canadianlawyermag.com/5299/The-trouble-with-criminal-speech.html|work= Canadian Lawyer|access-date= 6 March 2017|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170307203953/http://canadianlawyermag.com/5299/The-trouble-with-criminal-speech.html|archive-date= 7 March 2017|url-status= dead}}</ref> In the most recent case, in 2012, an Ottawa restaurant owner was convicted of ongoing online harassment of a customer who had complained about the quality of food and service in her restaurant.<ref>{{cite news |title=Cyberbullying restaurant owner gets 90 days in jail |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cyberbullying-restaurant-owner-gets-90-days-in-jail-1.1297395 |access-date=23 February 2021 |agency=CBC |date=16 November 2012}}</ref>

According to the OSCE official report on defamation laws issued in 2005, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted – 9 to prison sentences, 19 to [[probation]] and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was four years of imprisonment.{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=40}}

====Online====
The rise of the internet as a medium for publication and the expression of ideas, including the emergence of social media platforms transcending national boundaries, has proven challenging to reconcile with traditional notions of defamation law. Questions of jurisdiction and conflicting limitation periods in trans-border online defamation cases, liability for hyperlinks to defamatory content, filing lawsuits against anonymous parties, and the liability of internet service providers and intermediaries make online defamation a uniquely complicated area of law.<ref>{{Cite web|publisher=Mondaq|url=https://www.mondaq.com/canada/libel-defamation/1192444/internet-defamation-for-businesses-and-professionals|title=Canada: Internet Defamation For Businesses And Professionals|author=Karem Tirmandi|date=12 May 2022|access-date=30 May 2022}}</ref>

In 2011, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Crookes v. Newton|link=|year=2011|court=scc|num=47|format=|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[2011] 3 SCR 269|date=2011-10-19|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libelandprivacy.com/cyber-libel-updates/|title=Cyber Libel Updates Archives|website=McConchie Law Corporation}}</ref>

===Chile===
In [[Chile]], the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation ({{lang|es|injurias}}) are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as "the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution" (Article 412). If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is "lower imprisonment" in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 "vital wages" when it refers to a crime, or "lower imprisonment" in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to ten "vital wages" when it refers to a [[misdemeanor]] (Article 413). If it is not written or with publicity, penalty is "lower imprisonment" in its minimum degree plus a fine of six to fifteen "vital wages" when it is about a crime, or plus a fine of six to ten "vital wages" when it is about a misdemeanor (Article 414).<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.servicioweb.cl/juridico/Codigo%20Penal%20de%20Chile%20libro2.htm Chilean Penal Code, Book II] (see Articles 412 to 431)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://documents.scribd.com/docs/27edl5w48zk905llll5s.pdf |title=IEstudiosPenales.com.ar – Penal Code of Chile |language=es}}&nbsp;{{small|(578&nbsp;KB)}} (see pages 75–78)</ref>

According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, "lower imprisonment" is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years. According to Article 30, the penalty of "lower imprisonment" in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.servicioweb.cl/juridico/Codigo%20Penal%20de%20Chile%20libro1.htm Chilean Penal Code, Book I] (see Articles 25 and 30)</ref>

Article 416 defines {{lang|es|injuria}} as "all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt". Article 417 defines broadly {{lang|es|injurias graves}} (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. "Grave slander" in written form or with publicity are punished with "lower imprisonment" in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of eleven to twenty "vital wages". Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and [[inheritance|heirs]] of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander.<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/CP-chile.html Biblioteca.jus.gov.ar – Penal Code of Chile] (see articles 416–417 and 424–425)</ref>

===China===
====Civil====
Based on text from [[s:Civil Code of the People's Republic of China/Book Four|Wikisource]]:{{better source needed |date=August 2023 |reason=Needs official sources (not just self-referential Wikimedia sources).}} [[Civil Code of the People's Republic of China]], "Book Four" ("Personality Rights").

"Chapter I" ("General rules"):
* Personality rights: reputation, honour, privacy, dignity (Art. 990)
* Protection of personality rights (Arts. 991{{ndash}}993)
* Personality rights of the deceased (Art. 994)
* Liability for infringement; and requests to stop, restore reputation, offer apology (Arts. 995{{ndash}}1000)

"Chapter V" ("Rights to Reputation and Rights to Honor"):
* Right to reputation, protection from defamation and insults (Art. 1024)
** Reputation includes moral character, prestige, talent, credit
* Liability for fact fabrication, distortion, lack of verification, misrepresentation, insults (Art. 1025)
* Verification considerations, source credibility, controversial information, timeliness, [[public-order crime|public order]] and [[public morality|morals]] (Art. 1026)
* Depictions of real people and events, in literary and artistic works (Art. 1027)
* Right to request correction or deletion (Art. 1028)
* Right to request correction or deletion, for incorrect [[credit history|credit reports]] (Arts. 1029, 1030)
* Honorary titles and awards: protection, recording, correction (Art. 1031)

====Criminal====
Article 246 of the [[Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China]] ([[s:zh:中华人民共和国刑法|中华人民共和国刑法]]) makes serious defamation punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention upon complaint, unless it is against the government.<ref>[http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920234620/https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/criminal-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china |date=20 September 2021}}, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.</ref>

===Croatia===
In [[Croatia]], the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison, or a fine of "up to 100 daily incomes" (Criminal Code, Article 199). If the crime is committed in public, penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment, or a fine of "up to 150 daily incomes" (Article 199–2). Moreover, the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation. The maximum penalty is one year in prison, or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes (Article 200–1). If the crime is committed in public, the prison term can reach one year (Article 200–2). On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the [[context (language use)|specific context]] is that of a [[scientific literature|scientific work]], [[literature|literary work]], [[work of art]], public information conducted by a politician or a government official, [[journalism|journalistic work]], or the defence of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases ''provided that'' the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone's reputation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P468_36529 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Croatia |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Czech Republic===
According to the Czech Criminal Code, Article 184, defamation is a crime. Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year (Article 184–1) or, if the crime is committed through the press, film, radio, TV, publicly accessible computer network, or by "similarly effective" methods, the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/trestni-zakonik/cast2h2d2.aspx#par184 |title=Czech Criminal Code – Law No. 40/2009 Coll., Article 184 |publisher=Business.center.cz |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>
However, only the most severe cases will be subject to criminal prosecution. The less severe cases can be solved by an action for apology, damages or injunctions.

===Denmark===
In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. In addition, Article 266-b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or "sexual inclination".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P574_48325 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Denmark |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=51 |loc=item 6}}

===Finland===
In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to the [[Criminal Code of Finland|Criminal Code]] (Chapter 24, Sections 9 and 10), punishable with a fine, or, if aggravated, with up to two years' imprisonment or a fine. Defamation is defined as spreading a false report or insinuation apt to cause harm to a person, or otherwise disparaging someone. Defamation of the deceased may also constitute an offence if apt to cause harm to surviving loved ones. In addition, there is a crime called "dissemination of information violating personal privacy" (Chapter 24, Section 8), which consists in disseminating information, even accurate, in a way that is apt to harm someone's right to privacy. Information that may be relevant with regard to a person's conduct in public office, in business, or in a comparable position, or of information otherwise relevant to a matter of public interest, is not covered by this prohibition.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf | title=The Criminal Code of Finland (English version) | access-date=2012-02-15 | archive-date=26 October 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026171246/https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf | url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P630_52018 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Finland |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref> Finnish criminal law has no provisions penalizing the defamation of corporate entities, only of natural persons.

===France===
====Civil====
While defamation law in most jurisdictions centres on the protection of individuals' dignity or reputation, defamation law in [[France]] is particularly rooted in protecting the privacy of individuals.<ref name=LD>{{cite journal|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422014537174|title=Legal Divisions|author=Dominique Mondoloni|journal=Index on Censorship |date=June 2014 |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=84–87 |doi=10.1177/0306422014537174 |s2cid=147433423 |access-date=25 May 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref> While the broader scope of the rights protected make defamation cases easier to prove in France than, for example, in England; awards in defamation cases are significantly lower and it is common for courts to award symbolic damages as low as €1.<ref name=LD/> Controversially, damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens, which has a [[chilling effect]] on criticism of public policy<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/08/france-faces-restrictions-on-free-expression/|title=France: Strict defamation and privacy laws limit free expression|author=Index on Censorship|access-date=25 May 2022|date=19 August 2013}}</ref> While the only statutory defence available under French defamation law is to demonstrate the truth of the defamatory statement in question, a defence that is unavailable in cases involving an individual's personal life; French courts have recognised three additional exceptions:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ipi.media/in-france-judicial-evolution-in-defamation-cases-protects-work-of-civil-society/|title=In France, judicial evolution in defamation cases protects work of civil society|author=Scott Griffen|publisher=International Press Institute|access-date=25 May 2022|date=25 September 2014|archive-date=3 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303212541/https://ipi.media/in-france-judicial-evolution-in-defamation-cases-protects-work-of-civil-society/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*References to matters over ten years old
*References to a person's pardoned or expunged criminal record
*A plea of good faith, which may be made if the statement 
**pursues a legitimate aim
**is not driven by animosity or malice
**is prudent and measured in presentation
**is backed by a serious investigation that dutifully sought to ascertain the truth of the statement.

====Criminal====
[[File:CdG LA VIE ILLUSTREE 1902 N 197 L'AFFAIRE Mme DUGAST- Me BARBOUX 25 July 1902.JPG|thumb|right|Front page of {{lang|fr|La Vie Illustrée}} on 25 July 1902. [[Camille du Gast|Mme Camille du Gast]] stands in court during the cases of [[Domino mask#La Femme au Masque|character defamation]] by the barrister Maître Barboux, and the [[Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Duc de Sagan|Prince of Sagan]]'s assault on Barboux.]]

Defined as "the allegation or [the] allocation of a fact that damages the honor or reputation of the person or body to which the fact is imputed". A defamatory allegation is considered an insult if it does not include any facts or if the claimed facts cannot be verified.
{{clear}}

===Germany===
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. {{as of|2006}}, German defamation lawsuits are increasing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080414084747/http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2008-04-14 |title=Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006 |access-date=2010-09-07 }}</ref> The relevant offences of Germany's [[Strafgesetzbuch#German StGB|Criminal Code]] are §90 (denigration of the Federal President), §90a (denigration of the [federal] State and its symbols), §90b (unconstitutional denigration of the organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (defamation of character), §187 (defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (denigration of a deceased person), §192 ("insult" with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are §190 (criminal conviction as proof of truth), §193 (no defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), §194 (application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and §200 (method of proclamation).

===Greece===
In Greece, the maximum prison term for defamation, libel or insult was five years, while the maximum fine was €15,000.{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=68 |loc= items 6 and 7}}

The crime of insult (Article 361, § 1, of the Penal Code) may have led to up to one year of imprisonment or a fine, while unprovoked insult (Article
361-A, § 1) was punished with at least three months in prison. In addition, defamation may have resulted in up to two months in prison or a fine, while aggravated defamation could have led to at least three months of prison, plus a possible fine (Article 363) and deprivation of the offender's [[civil and political rights|civil rights]]. Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to six months (Penal Code, Article 365).
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P843_81731 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Greece |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===India===
In India, a defamation case can be filed under either [[criminal law]] or [[Civil law (common law)|civil law]], or both.<ref name="Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit">{{cite news|title=Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit|url=http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm|access-date=28 November 2013|date=21 September 2004|first=Subramanian|last=Swamy|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130722120816/http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm|newspaper=[[The Hindu]]|archive-date=22 July 2013}}</ref>

According to the [[Constitution of India]],<ref name="India Constitution">{{Cite web |url=https://legislative.gov.in/constitutionofindia/constition-india-english |title=Constitution (India) |website=Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India}}</ref> the [[Fundamental Rights in India#Right to freedom|fundamental right to free speech (Article 19)]] is subject to "reasonable restrictions":
{{Blockquote|text=
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
*(1) All citizens shall have the right—
**(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
*[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of  [the sovereignty and integrity of India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.]
}}

Accordingly, for the purpose of [[criminal]] defamation, "reasonable restrictions" are defined in Section 499 of the [[Indian Penal Code|Indian Penal Code, 1860]] (Section 499 of Indian Penal Code has now been replaced by Section 356 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).<ref name="India Penal Code">{{Cite journal |url=https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2263 |title=Penal Code (India) |website=National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India)|date=6 October 1860 }}</ref> This section defines defamation and provides ten valid exceptions when a statement is not considered to be defamation. It says that defamation takes place, when someone "by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person". The punishment is simple imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both (Section 500).

Some other offences related to false allegations: false statements regarding elections (Section 171G), false [[information (formal criminal charge)|information]] (Section 182), false claims in court (Section 209), false [[criminal charge]]s (Section 211).

Some other offences related to insults: against public servants in judicial proceedings (Section 228), against religion or religious beliefs ([[Section 295A]]), against religious feelings (Section 298), against breach of peace (Section 504), against modesty of women (Section 509).

According to the [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]]<ref name="India Criminal Procedure Code">{{Cite journal |url=https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/16225 |title=Criminal Procedure Code (India) |website=National Informatics Centre (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India)|date=25 January 1974 }}</ref> defamation is prosecuted only upon a complaint (within six months from the act) (Section 199), and is a [[bail]]able, [[Cognisable offence|non-cognisable]] and compoundable offence (See: The First Schedule, Classification of Offences).

===Ireland===
{{See also|Blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland|Censorship in the Republic of Ireland|Statute of Limitations in Ireland}}
According to the (revised) Defamation Act 2009,<ref name="Ireland Defamation Act 2009">{{Cite web |url=http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2009/act/31/front/revised/en/html |title=Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland) |website=Law Reform Commission of Ireland}}</ref> the last criminal offences (Sections 36{{nbnd}}37, blasphemy) seem to have been repealed. The [[statute of limitations]] is one year from the time of first publication (may be extended to two years by the courts) (Section 38).

The 2009 Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961, which had, together with the underlying principles of the common law of tort, governed Irish defamation law for almost half a century. The 2009 Act represents significant changes in Irish law, as many believe that it previously attached insufficient importance to the media's freedom of expression and weighed too heavily in support of the individual's right to a good name.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wood |first1=Kieron |title=Defamation Law in Ireland |url=https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/ |website=www.lawyer.ie |access-date=19 February 2019}}</ref>

===Israel===
According to ''Defamation Prohibition Law''<!--I assume this is a book?-->{{full citation needed|date=September 2022}} (1965), defamation can constitute either civil or criminal offence.

As a civil offence, defamation is considered a tort case and the court may award a compensation of up to {{NIS|50,000}} to the person targeted by the defamation, while the plaintiff does not have to prove a material damage.

As a criminal offence, defamation is punishable by a year of imprisonment. In order to constitute a felony, defamation must be intentional and target at least two persons.

===Italy===
In Italy, there used to be different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) referred to the act of offending someone's honor in their presence and was punishable with up to six months in prison or a fine of up to €516.<!-- the word "determined" is ambiguous/incomprehensible: If the offence referred to the attribution of a determined fact and was committed before many persons, the penalties were doubled.--> The crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one's reputation before many persons, and is punishable with a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to €1,032 in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of €2,065 if the offence consists in the attribution of a determined fact. When the offence happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least €516. Both of them were {{lang|it|a querela di parte}} crimes, that is, the victim had the right of choosing, in any moment, to stop the criminal prosecution by withdrawing the {{lang|it|querela}} (a formal complaint), or even prosecute the fact only with a civil action with no {{lang|it|querela}} and therefore no criminal prosecution at all. Beginning from 15 January 2016, injury is no longer a crime but a tort, while defamation is still considered a crime like before.<ref>{{cite web |title=Dei delitti contro la persona. Libro II, Titolo XII |url=https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/28/dei-delitti-contro-la-persona |website=AltaLex |date=22 June 2018 |access-date=27 May 2020 |language=it}}</ref>

Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with [[Malfeasance in office|abuse of power]] or with abuse of a profession or [[art]], or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary [[Ban (law)|ban]] in the exercise of that profession or art. Therefore, journalists convicted of libel may be banned from exercising their profession.{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=79 |loc=item 8}}<ref>{{in lang|it}} [http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=2005 Italian Penal Code] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317123316/http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=2005 |date=17 March 2015 }}, Article 31.</ref> Deliberately false accusations of defamation, as with any other crime, lead to the crime of {{lang|it|[[calunnia]]}} ("[[calumny]]", Article 368, Penal Code), which, under the Italian legal system, is defined as the crime of falsely accusing, before the authorities, a person of a crime they did not commit. As to the trial, judgment on the legality of the evidence fades into its relevance.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Buonomo|first1=Giampiero|title=Commento alla decisione della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo di ricevibilità del ricorso n. 48898/99|language=it|journal=Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online|date=2001|url=https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89289653|access-date=2016-03-17|archive-date=2019-12-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211140818/https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89289653|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Japan===
{{further interlanguage link |Defamation law of Japan |ja |名誉毀損罪}}

The [[Constitution of Japan]]<ref name="Japan Constitution">{{cite web |url=https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html |title=Constitution (Japan) |website=Official Website of the Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet |access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> reads: 
{{blockquote |text=
Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
}}

====Civil====
Under article 723 of the Japanese Civil Code, a court is empowered to order a tortfeasor in a defamation case to "take suitable measures for the restoration of the [plaintiff's] reputation either in lieu of or together with compensation for damages".<ref>MINPO [Civil Code] art. 723 (Japan)</ref> An example of a civil defamation case in Japan can be found at [http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?54206-Japan-civil-court-finds-against-ZNTIR-President-Yositoki-(Mitsuo)-Hataya-and-Yoshiaki Japan civil court finds against ZNTIR President Yositoki (Mitsuo) Hataya and Yoshiaki].

====Criminal====
The [[Penal Code of Japan]]<ref name="Japan Penal Code">{{cite web |url=https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581 |title=Penal Code (Japan) |website=Japanese Law Translation Database System |access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> (translation from government, but still not official text) seems to prescribe these related offences:

Article 92, "Damage to a Foreign National Flag". Seems relevant to the extent that the wording: "...{{nbsp}}defiles the national flag or other national emblem of a foreign state for the purpose of insulting the foreign state", can be construed to include more abstract defiling; translations of the Japanese term ({{lang |ja |汚損}},<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jisho.org/search?keyword=汚損 |title=汚損 |website=Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary |access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> {{transliteration |ja |oson}}) include 'defacing'.

Article 172, "False Accusations". That is, false [[criminal charge]]s (as in [[complaint]], [[indictment]], or [[information (formal criminal charge)|information]]).

Article 188, "Desecrating Places of Worship; Interference with Religious Service". The Japanese term ({{lang |ja |不敬}},<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jisho.org/search?keyword=不敬 |title=不敬 |website=Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary |access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> {{transliteration |ja |fukei}}) seems to include any act of 'disrespect' and 'blasphemy'{{snd}}a standard term; as long as it is performed in a place of worship.

Articles 230 and 230-2, "Defamation" ({{lang |ja |名誉毀損}}, {{transliteration |ja |meiyokison}}). General defamation provision. Where the truth of the allegations is not a factor in determining guilt; but there is "Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest", whereby proving the allegations is allowed as a defence. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint".

Article 231, "Insults" ({{lang |ja |侮辱}}, {{transliteration |ja |bujoku}}). General insult provision. See also 232: "prosecuted only upon complaint".

Article 233, "Damage to Credibility; Obstruction of Business". Special provision for damaging the reputation of, or 'confidence' ({{lang |ja |信用}},<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jisho.org/search?keyword=信用 |title=信用 |website=Jisho.org: Japanese Dictionary |access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> {{transliteration |ja |shinnyou}}) in, the business of another.

For a sample penal defamation case, see {{cite court |litigants=President of the Yukan Wakayama Jiji v. States |vol=Vol. 23 No. 7 |reporter=Minshu |opinion=1966 (A) 2472 |pinpoint=975 |court=[[Supreme Court of Japan]] |date=25 June 1969 |url=https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=32 |postscript=none}}{{snd}}also on [[s:Judgement upon penal case of defamation, 1969-06-25|Wikisource]]. The defence alleged, among other things, violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that none of the defence's grounds for appeal amounted to lawful grounds for a final appeal. Nevertheless, the court examined the case {{lang |la |[[wikt:ex officio|ex officio]]}}, and found procedural illegalities in the lower courts' judgments (regarding the exclusion of evidence from testimony, as hearsay). As a result, the court quashed the conviction on appeal, and remanded the case to a lower court for further proceedings.

===Malaysia===
In Malaysia, defamation is both a tort and a criminal offence meant to protect the reputation and good name of a person. The principal statutes relied upon are the Defamation Act 1957 (Revised 1983) and the Penal Code. Following the practice of other common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Singapore, and India, Malaysia relies on case law. In fact, the Defamation Act 1957 is similar with the English Defamaiton Act 1952. The Malaysian Penal Code is {{lang|la|pari materia}} with the Indian and Singaporean Penal Codes.

===Mexico===
In Mexico, crimes of calumny, defamation and slanderous allegation ({{lang|es|injurias}}) have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in fifteen states. These crimes remain in the penal codes of seventeen states, where penalty is, in average, from 1.1 years (for ones convicted for slanderous allegation) to 3.8 years in jail (for those convicted for calumny).<ref>[http://periodistas.scyma.info/?q=node/1 "Delitos de injuria, difamación y calumnia en los códigos penales de México"]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721232755/http://periodistas.scyma.info/?q=node%2F1 |date=21 July 2011 }}</ref>

===Netherlands===
{{unreferenced section|date=September 2022}}

In the Netherlands, defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court. Article 167 of book 6 of the [[Civil Code]] holds: "When someone is liable towards another person under this Section because of an incorrect or, by its incompleteness, misleading publication of information of factual nature, the court may, upon a right of action (legal claim) of this other person, order the tortfeasor to publish a correction in a way to be set by court." If the court grants an injunction, the defendant is usually ordered to delete the publication or to publish a rectification statement.

===Norway===
In Norway, defamation was a crime punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine (Penal Code, Chapter 23, § 246). When the offense is likely to harm one's "good name" and reputation, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum prison term went up to one year, and if the defamation happens in print, in broadcasting or through an especially aggravating circumstance, imprisonment may have reached two years (§ 247). When the offender acts "against his better judgment", he was liable to a maximum prison term of three years (§ 248). According to § 251, defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person, unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons, when it may also have been prosecuted by public authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P1252_117790 |title=European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Norway |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1690/file/c428fe3723f10dcbcf983ed59145.htm/preview |title=Norwegian Penal Code (English version) |publisher=Legislationline.org |access-date=2010-09-07 |archive-date=24 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224200351/http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1690/file/c428fe3723f10dcbcf983ed59145.htm/preview |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Under the new Penal Code, decided upon by the Parliament in 2005, defamation would cease to exist as a crime. Rather, any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits. The Criminal Code took effect on 1 October 2015.

===Philippines===
====Criminal====
{{see also |Mass media in the Philippines#Libel and cyber libel}}

According to the [[Revised Penal Code]] of the [[Philippines]] ("Title Thirteen", "Crimes Against Honor"):<ref name="Philippines Penal Code">{{cite web |url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ |title=Act No. 3815, s. 1930 (Revised Penal Code of the Philippines) |website=[[Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines]] |access-date=2 September 2023 |archive-date=8 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230608093131/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

{{blockquote |text=
ARTICLE 353. Definition of Libel.{{snd}}A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
}}

* Malice presumed, even if true; exceptions: private communications in the course of duty, fair reports{{snd}}without comments{{snd}}on official proceedings (Art. 354)
* Punishment for libel in writing or similar medium (including radio, painting, theatre, cinema): imprisonment, fine, civil action (Art. 355)
* Threat to publish libel concerning one's family, for extracting money (Art. 356)
* Publication in [[Mass media#Print media|the press]] of private-life facts{{snd}}connected to official proceedings{{snd}}offending virtue, honour, reputation (Art. 357)
* Slander{{snd}}oral defamation (Art. 358)
* Slander by deed{{snd}}"any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person" (Art. 359)
* Responsibility for dissemination; same as for authorship (Art. 360)
* Conditions for defence of truth: good motives, justifiable ends; not available for allegations of non-criminal activities{{snd}}unless related to official duties of government employees (Art. 361)
* Malicious comments cancel the exceptions of Art. 354 (Art. 362)
* Incriminating an innocent person (Art. 363)
* Intrigue against honour or reputation (Art. 364)

Related articles:
* Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
** Crime committed in contempt of, or with insult to, public authorities (¶ 2)
** Act committed with insult or disrespect, regarding rank, age, or sex (¶ 3)
** Intentionally causing [[wikt:ignominy|ignominy]], in addition to other effects of the act (¶ 17)
* Statute of limitations: Two years for libel, six months for slander, two months for light offences (Art. 90)
* Offending religious feelings{{snd}}in places of worship, or during religious ceremonies (Art. 133)
* Disrespectful behaviour towards legislature or related bodies, during their proceedings (Art. 144)
* "Unlawful use of means of publication" (Art. 154)
** Publication of malicious [[fake news]], endangering public order, or damaging state interests or credit (¶ 1)
* False testimony against defendant, in criminal cases (Art. 180)
* Spreading false rumours, when aiming to monopolize or restrain trade (Art. 186 ¶ 2)
* Lesser physical injury, when intended to insult, offend, cause ignominy (Art. 265 ¶ 2)
* Threats to harm honour{{snd}}e.g. for extracting money (Art. 282)

In January 2012, ''[[The Manila Times]]'' published an article on a criminal defamation case. A broadcaster was jailed for more than two years, following conviction on libel charges, by the [[Regional Trial Court]] of [[Davao Region|Davao]]. The radio broadcast dramatized a newspaper report regarding former speaker [[Prospero Nograles]], who subsequently filed a complaint. Questioned were the conviction's compatibility with freedom of expression, and the [[trial in absentia]]. The United Nations Human Rights Committee recalled its [[#General comment No. 34|General comment No. 34]], and ordered the Philippine government to provide remedy, including compensation for time served in prison, and to prevent similar violations in the future.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel |title=Libel law violates freedom of expression{{snd}}UN rights panel |author=Frank Lloyd Tiongson |date=30 January 2012 |website=[[The Manila Times]] |access-date= |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509133717/http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel |archive-date=9 May 2013}}</ref>

====Online====
{{see also |Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 |People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler}}

In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titled ''Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012''. Essentially, this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as: "Libel – the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future." Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law, electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from six years and one day to up to twelve years.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/opinion/2012/09/21/lee-cybercrime-prevention-act-2012-244029|title=Lee: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|work=Sun*Star – Davao|date=21 September 2012|access-date=20 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922225054/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/opinion/2012/09/21/lee-cybercrime-prevention-act-2012-244029|archive-date=22 September 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/|title=Cybercrime law and freedom of expression| author=Harry Roque Jr. |work=Manila Standard|date=20 September 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922014156/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/|archive-date=22 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/|title=Republic Act No. 10175|work=Official Gazette|publisher=Office of the President of the Philippines|date=12 September 2012|access-date=22 May 2020|archive-date=9 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209023224/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/|url-status=dead}}</ref> {{as of|2012|9|30}}, five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator [[Teofisto Guingona III]]. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens|title=Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens|date=30 September 2012|newspaper=The Daily Tribune|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121029032238/http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens|archive-date=29 October 2012}}</ref>

===Poland===
In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a [[misconduct|conduct that may degrade]] him in [[public opinion]] or expose him "to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity". Penalties include fine, limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code). The penalty is more severe when the offence happens through the [[mass media|media]] (Article 212.2).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P1327_125657 |title=European Council – Defamation Laws (English) – Section Poland |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref> When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their [[nationality]], ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is three years.{{sfn |OSCE Report |2005 |p=117 |loc=item 6}}

===Portugal===
In Portugal, defamation crimes are: "defamation" (article 180 of the [[Penal Code of Portugal|Penal Code]]; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), "injuries" (art. 181; up to three months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and "offence to the memory of a deceased person" (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of "public knowledge of the court decision" (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of "incitement of a crime" (article 297; up to three years in prison, or fine).<ref>{{in lang|pt}} [http://www.aacs.pt/legislacao/codigo_penal.htm Portuguese Penal Code] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091217230903/http://www.aacs.pt/legislacao/codigo_penal.htm |date=17 December 2009 }} (articles 180 to 189)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2007/09/17000/0618106258.pdf |title=Portuguese Penal Code (official version) |language=pt}}&nbsp;{{small|(641&nbsp;KB)}} (full text)</ref>

===Romania===
Since 2014, defamation is no longer criminalized in the country.<ref>Mona Scărișoreanu, [http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/eveniment/romania--printre-putinele-state-europene-care-au-dezincriminat-insulta-si-calomnia-330829 România, printre puținele state europene care au dezincriminat insulta și calomnia] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201125322/https://romanialibera.ro/actualitate/eveniment/romania--printre-putinele-state-europene-care-au-dezincriminat-insulta-si-calomnia-330829 |date=1 February 2021 }}, în ''România Liberă'', 31 martie 2014; accesat la 5 octombrie 2015.</ref>

===Saudi Arabia===
In [[Saudi Arabia]], defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable under [[Terrorism in Saudi Arabia|terrorism]] legislation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-passes-anti-terror-law-banning-defamation-1.1267892|title=Saudi Arabia passes anti-terror law, banning defamation|website= Gulf News |date=17 December 2013 |access-date= 30 March 2018}}</ref> In a 2015 case, a Saudi writer was arrested for defaming a former ruler of the country. Reportedly, under a [2014] counterterrorism law, "actions that 'threaten Saudi Arabia's unity, disturb public order, or defame the reputation of the state or the king' are considered acts of terrorism. The law decrees that a suspect can be held incommunicado for 90 days without the presence of their lawyer during the initial questioning."<ref name="Saudi writer arrested">{{cite news|first=Linah |last=Alsaafin |title=Saudi writer arrested for insulting long-dead king|url=http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-writer-arrested-insulting-king-175970668#sthash.wGGUZRFv.dpuf|access-date=1 June 2016|agency=Middle East Eye|publisher=Middle East Eye|date=15 July 2015}}</ref>

===Singapore===
In [[Singapore]], Division 2 of Part 3 of the [[Protection from Harassment Act (Singapore)|Protection from Harassment Act 2014]] provides for individuals who have been affected by false statements online to seek a variety of court orders under the tort of harassment that are not available under the pre-internet tort of defamation:<ref name=PHA2014>{{Cite web|url=https://sso.agc.gov.sg:5443/Act/PHA2014|title=Protection from Harassment Act 2014 - Singapore Statutes Online|website=sso.agc.gov.sg}}{{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
* Stop Publication Order (an order requiring the tortfeasor to stop making the defamatory statement)
* Correction Order (an order for the tortfeasor to publish a correction of the statement)
* Disabling Order (an order requiring an internet-based intermediaries to disable access to the defamatory statement).

This is distinct from and does not affect plaintiffs right of action under the common law torts of libel and slander as modified by the Defamation Act 1957.<ref name=DA1957>{{cite web | url=https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/DA1957 | title=Defamation Act 1957 | publisher=Singapore Statutes Online | access-date=25 May 2022 }}</ref> The Protection of Harassment Act 2014, which provides for criminal penalties in addition to civil remedies, is specifically designed to address a narrower scope of conduct in order to avoid outlawing an overly broad range of speech, and is confined to addressing speech that causes "harassment, alarm, or distress".<ref name=PHA2014/>

===South Africa===
{{Main article|Crimen injuria}}

===South Korea===
In [[South Korea]], both true and false statements can be considered defamation.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Back |first1=Sang Hyun |title=Problems with Korea's Defamation Law |url=http://keia.org/problems-korea%E2%80%99s-defamation-law |website=Korea Economic Institute of America|access-date=22 September 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190922010456/http://keia.org/problems-korea%25E2%2580%2599s-defamation-law|archive-date=22 September 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref> The penalties increase for false statements. It is also possible for a person to be criminally defamed when they are no longer alive.<ref name="wsj.com">{{cite news |last1=Park |first1=S. Nathan |title=Is South Korea's Criminal Defamation Law Hurting Democracy? |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-KRTB-7090 |access-date=14 January 2021 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=15 December 2014}}</ref>

Criminal defamation occurs when a public statement damages the subject's reputation, unless the statement was true and presented solely for the [[public interest]].<ref name="wsj.com"/> In addition to criminal law, which allows for imprisonment (up to seven years in case the allegations are false) and monetary fines, one can also sue for damages with civil actions. Generally, criminal actions proceed civil ones with South Korean police as judicial investigators.{{citation needed |date=September 2023}}

====Online====
{{further |South Korean cyber defamation law}}

In October 2008, the ''[[Korea JoongAng Daily]]'' published an article on online attacks against [[celebrity|celebrities]], and their potential connection to [[Suicide in South Korea|suicides in the country]]. Before the death of [[Choi Jin-sil]], there were rumours online of a significant loan to the actor [[Ahn Jae-hwan]], who killed himself earlier due to debts. [[U{{;}}Nee]] hanged herself, unable to deal with remarks about her physical appearance and surgery. [[Jeong Da-bin]] committed suicide while suffering from depression, later linked to personal attacks about her appearance. [[Na Hoon-a]] was falsely rumoured to have been castrated by the ''[[yakuza]]''. [[Byun Jung-soo]] was falsely reported to have died in a car accident. A professor of [[information science|information]] and [[social studies]] from the [[Soongsil University]], warned how rumours around celebrities can impact their lives, in unexpected and serious ways.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2008/10/03/socialAffairs/Celebrities-driven-over-the-edge-by-online-rumors/2895629.html |title=Celebrities driven over the edge by online rumors |author=Lee Hyun-taek |author2=Park Sun-young |date=3 October 2008 |website=[[Korea JoongAng Daily]] |access-date=12 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831043147/https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2008/10/03/socialAffairs/Celebrities-driven-over-the-edge-by-online-rumors/2895629.html |archive-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>

In January 2009, according to an article in ''[[The Korea Times]]'', a [[Seoul]] court approved the arrest of online financial commentator [[Minerva (Internet celebrity)|Minerva]], for spreading false information. According to the decision, Minerva's online comments affected national credibility negatively. Lawmakers from the ruling [[Grand National Party]] proposed a [[bill (law)|bill]], that would allow imprisonment up to three years for online defamation, and would authorize the police to investigate cyber defamation cases without prior [[complaint]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/08/113_37632.html |title=Parties Clash Over Freedom Of Expression |author=Kang Hyun-kyung |date=11 January 2009 |website=[[The Korea Times]] |access-date=12 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831041007/https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/08/113_37632.html |archive-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>

In September 2015, according to an article in ''[[Hankook Ilbo]]'', submitted complaints for insults during online games were increasing. Complainants aimed for [[settlement (litigation)|settlement money]], wasting the investigative capacity of police departments. One person could end up suing 50 others, or more. This led to the emergence of settlement-money hunters, provoking others to insult them, and then demanding compensation. According to statistics from the Cyber Security Bureau of the [[National Police Agency (South Korea)|National Police Agency]], the number of cyber defamation and insult reports was 5,712 in 2010, 8,880 in 2014, and at least 8,488 in 2015. More than half of the complaints for cyber insults were game-related (the article mentions ''[[League of Legends]]'' specifically). Most of the accused were teenagers. Parents often paid settlement fees, ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 [[South Korean won]] (US$300{{ndash}}2000 as of 2015), to save their children from getting [[criminal record]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201509100455164359 |author=정준호 |date=10 September 2015 |website=[[Hankook Ilbo]] |language=ko |script-title=ko:욕설 넘치는 온라인게임 '롤' ... 모욕죄 고소 난무 |trans-title=An online game full of swear words, 'Roll' ... accusation of insult |access-date=16 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831043855/https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201509100455164359 |archive-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>

===Former Soviet Union===
In the former [[Soviet Union]], defamatory insults can "only constitute a criminal offence, not a civil wrong".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=u4Y7l-vNpv4C&dq=%22civil+law%22+defamation&pg=PA114 "Copyright, Defamation and Privacy in Soviet Civil Law"] (Levitsky, Serge L.) (''Law in Eastern Europe'', No. 22 (I) – Issued by the Documentation Office for East European Law, from the University of Leyden, page 114)</ref>

===Spain===
In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of the [[Criminal Code (Spain)|Penal Code]]) consists of accusing someone of a crime knowing the falsity of the accusation, or with a reckless [[contempt]] for truth. Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months-fine, and for other cases only a fine of six to twelve months-fine (Article 206). Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone's [[dignity]], depreciating his reputation or injuring his [[self-esteem]], and is only applicable if the offence, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong. Injury has a penalty of fine from three to seven months-fine, or from six to fourteen months-fine when it is strong and with publicity. According to Article 216, an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge, determining the publication of the judicial decision (in a newspaper) at the expenses of the defamer.<ref>{{in lang|es}} [http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo10-1995.l2t11.html Penal Code of Spain] (Articles 205 to 216)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P1668_166180 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Spain |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Sweden===
In Sweden, denigration ({{lang|sv|ärekränkning}}) is criminalised by Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Article 1 regulates defamation ({{lang|sv|förtal}}) and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as "having a reprehensible way of living", or of providing information about them "intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others". The penalty is a fine.<ref name=swedenlaw>[https://www.government.se/48d6e0/contentassets/5315d27076c942019828d6c36521696e/the-swedish-criminal-code.pdf Swedish Penal Code (English version)] {{Dead link|date=June 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} (see Chapter 5)</ref> It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue; it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.<ref name=jobbet>Ström, E. [http://arbetsplatskonflikt.av.gu.se/1akut/19kraenkningar.html "Om att utsättas för kränkningar på jobbet"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100430055718/http://arbetsplatskonflikt.av.gu.se/1akut/19kraenkningar.html |date=30 April 2010 }} (in Swedish) Department of Work Science, University of Gothenburg</ref><ref>Frigyes, Paul [http://www.journalisten.se/kronika/21455/i-vaentan-pa-juryn "I väntan på juryn..."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226133427/https://www.journalisten.se/kronika/21455/i-vaentan-pa-juryn |date=26 February 2021 }} ''Journalisten'' 25 November 2008</ref>

Article 2 regulates [[Aggravation (legal concept)|gross]] defamation ({{lang|sv|grovt förtal}}) and has a penalty of up to two years in prison or a fine. In judging if the crime is gross, the court should consider whether the information, because of its content or the scope of its dissemination, is calculated to produce "serious damage".<ref name=swedenlaw /> For example, if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths.<ref name=jobbet /> Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2.<ref name=swedenlaw /> Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someone's parents as a way to bypass the law.<ref name=jobbet />

Article 3 regulates other [[Insult (law)|insulting behaviour]] ({{lang|sv|förolämpning}}), not characterised under Article 1 or 2, and is punishable with a fine or, if it is gross, with up to six months of prison or a fine.<ref name=swedenlaw /> While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behaviour.<ref name=jobbet />

Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/Doc/DH-MM(2003)006rev_fr.asp#P1693_167820 |title=European Council – Laws on Defamation (English) – Section Sweden |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=2010-09-07}}</ref>

===Switzerland===
In [[Switzerland]], the crime of wilful defamation is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least thirty days' worth, according to Article 174-2 of the [[Swiss Criminal Code]]. There is wilful defamation when the offender knows the falsity of his/her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one's victim (see Articles 174-1 and 174–2).<ref>{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a174.html Swiss Penal Code – Calumny] (Article 174)</ref><ref>(Swiss criminal code in English [https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19370083/index.html#a174])</ref>

On the other hand, defamation is punished only with a maximum monetary penalty of 180 daily penalty units (Article 173–1).<ref>{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a173.html Swiss Penal Code – Defamation] (Article 173)</ref> When it comes to a deceased or absent person, the [[statute of limitations]] is 30 years (after the death).<ref>{{in lang|fr}} [http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a175.html Swiss Penal Code – Defamation and calumny against a deceased or absent person] (Article 175)</ref>

===Taiwan===
====Civil====
According to the Civil Code of the [[Republic of China]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 |title=Civil Code (of the Republic of China) |website=Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) |access-date=19 August 2023}}</ref>

"Part I General Principles", "Chapter II Persons", "Section I Natural Persons":
* Personality (and name) infringement; prevention, removal, damages for [[intentional infliction of emotional distress|emotional distress]] (Arts. 18, 19)

"Part II Obligations", "Chapter I General Provisions"

"Section 1{{snd}}Sources of Obligations", "Sub-section 5 Torts":
* General: Compensation for damaging the rights of another (Art. 184)
* Damage to reputation, credit, privacy, chastity, personality (Art. 195)
** Compensation even if loss is not purely pecuniary
** Measures to restore reputation
* [[Statute of limitations]]: Two years after injury and tortfeasor known, otherwise ten years from the act (Art. 197)

"Section 3{{snd}}Effects Of Obligations", "Sub-section 1 Performance":
* Injury to personality of creditor, by debtor's non-performance; compensation (Art. 227-1)

====Criminal====
The Criminal Code of the [[Republic of China]] ([[:zh:中華民國刑法|中華民國刑法]]),<ref name="Taiwan Penal Code">{{cite web |url=https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001 |title=Criminal Code of the Republic of China |website=Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref> under "Chapter 27 Offenses Against Reputation and Credit", lists these articles: 
* Insults (Art. 309)
* Slander and libel as distinct offences, with harsher punishment for libel; truth as a defence{{snd}}except for private matters (Art. 310)
* Defences related to protection of legal interests, reports on public matters, and fair comments (Art. 311)
* Insult and defamation of the deceased (Art. 312)
* Damage to credibility, with increased penalties when done via the media or the Internet (Art. 313)
* Offences only prosecuted upon [[complaint]] (Art. 314)
Other related articles:
* Increased punishment for injuring the reputation of heads and representatives of friendly states (Art. 116)
* Insults against foreign states, by dishonouring flags or emblems (Art. 118)
* Insults against public officials (Art. 140)
* Insults against public officials, combined with physical damage to proclamations (Art. 141)
* Insult against the state, by dishonouring the flag, emblem, or portraits of its [[Dr. Sun Yat-sen|founder]] (Art. 160)
* Insulting religious or memorial sites (Art. 246)
* Insulting the remains of deceased persons (Art. 247)
* Insulting the remains of deceased persons, in combination with gravedigging (Art. 249)
* Threat to injure the reputation of another, if it endangered their safety (Art. 305)

In July 2000, the Justices of the [[Judicial Yuan]] ([[:zh:司法院大法官|司法院大法官]]){{snd}}the Constitutional Court of Taiwan{{snd}} delivered the ''J.Y. Interpretation No. 509'' ("The Defamation Case"). They upheld the constitutionality of Art. 310 of the Criminal Code. In the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/94 |title=Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text) |website=Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan) |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> Article 11 establishes freedom of speech. Article 23 allows restrictions to freedoms and rights, to prevent infringing on the freedoms and rights of others. The court found that Art. 310 ¶¶ 1-2 were necessary and [[proportionality (law)|proportional]] to protect reputation, privacy, and the public interest. It seemed to extend the defence of truth in ¶ 3, to providing evidence that a perpetrator had reasonable grounds in believing the allegations were true (even if they could not ultimately be proven). Regarding criminal punishments versus civil remedies, it noted that if the law allowed anyone to avoid a penalty for defamation by offering monetary compensation, it would be tantamount to issuing them a licence to defame.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310690 |title=No. 509 ("The Defamation Case") |website=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref>

In January 2022, an editorial in the ''[[Taipei Times]]'' (written by a law student from the [[National Chengchi University]]) argued against Articles 309 and 310. Its position was abolishing prison sentences in practice, on the way to full decriminalization. It argued that insulting language should be tackled via [[education]], and not in the courts (with the exception of [[wikt:hate speech|hate speech]]). According to the article, 180 [[prosecutor]]s urged the [[Legislative Yuan]] to decriminalize defamation, or at least limit it to [[private prosecution]]s (in order to reserve public resources for major crimes, rather than private disputes and quarrels irrelevant to the public interest).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076 |title=Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel |author=Huang Yu-zhe |date=26 January 2022 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref>

In June 2023, the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment ''Case on the Criminalization of Defamation II''. The court dismissed all the complaints and upheld the constitutionality of the disputed provisions. It emphasized that excluding the application of substantial truth doctrine on defamatory speeches concerning private matters with no public concern, is proportionate in protecting the victim's reputation and privacy. The court reaffirmed ''J.Y. Interpretation No. 509'' and further supplemented its decision. It elaborated on the offender's duty to check the validity of the defamatory statements regarding public matters, and dictated that the offender shall not be punished if there are objective and reasonable grounds for the offender to believe the defamatory statement is true. The court ruled that untrue defamatory statements concerning public matters shall not be punished unless they are issued under actual malice. This includes situations where the offender knowingly or under gross negligence issued said defamatory statement. In terms of the burden of proof for actual malice, the court ruled that it shall be on the prosecutor or the accuser. To prevent fake news from eroding the marketplace of ideas, the court pointed out that the media (including mass media, social media, and self-media) shall be more thorough than the general public in fact-checking.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=2176&id=349342 |title=Case News on TCC Judgment 112 Hsien-Pan-8 (2023) |website=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref>

===Thailand===
====Civil====
The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand provides that:
{{blockquote|A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.

A person who makes a communication the untruth of which is unknown to him, does not thereby render himself liable to make compensation, if he or the receiver of the communication has a rightful interest in it.

The Court, when given judgment as to the liability for wrongful act and the amount of compensation, shall not be bound by the provisions of the criminal law concerning liability to punishment or by the conviction or non-conviction of the wrongdoer for a criminal offence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/civil-and-commercial-code-torts-section-420-437|title=Civil and Commercial Code: Torts (Section 420-437) – Thailand Law Library|date=12 February 2015}}</ref>}}

In practice, defamation law in Thailand has been found by the [[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights]] to be facilitate [[Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation|hostile and vexatious litigation]] by business interests seeking to suppress criticism.<ref name=OHCHRThailand>{{cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/05/thailand-un-experts-condemn-use-defamation-laws-silence-human-rights|title=Thailand: UN experts condemn use of defamation laws to silence human rights defender Andy Hall|publisher=[[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights]]|date=17 May 2018|access-date=26 May 2022}}</ref>

====Criminal====
The [[Law of Thailand|Thai Criminal Code]] provides that:
{{blockquote|Section 326. Defamation
Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both.

Section 327. Defamation to the Family

Whoever, imputing anything the deceased person before the third person, and that imputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of the deceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation, and shall be punished as prescribed by Section 326.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-defamation-sections-326-333|title=Criminal Code: Defamation (Sections 326–333) – Thailand Law Library|date=19 March 2015}}</ref>}}

Criminal defamation charges in Thailand under Section 326 of the Criminal Code are frequently used to censor journalists and activists critical of human rights circumstances for workers in the country.<ref name=OHCHRThailand/>

===United Kingdom===
{{See also|Libel Act|McLibel case}}

The United Kingdom abolished criminal libel on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the ''[[Coroners and Justice Act 2009]]''.<ref>{{cite legislation UK|type=act |year=2009 |chapter=25 |act=Coroners and Justice Act 2009}}</ref> There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchist [[Errico Malatesta]] was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.

Under [[English common law]], proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defence only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke [[breach of peace]], rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation ''per se''; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of the ''[[Libel Act 1843]]'' allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defence in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the "public benefit".<ref>{{Cite book  | last = Folkard | first = Henry Coleman  | title = The Law of Slander and Libel  | publisher = Butterworth & Co. | year = 1908  | location = London  | page = [https://archive.org/details/lawslanderandli00stargoog/page/n514 480]  | url = https://archive.org/details/lawslanderandli00stargoog| quote = public benefit. }}</ref>

===United States===
{{See also|United States free speech exceptions|Food libel laws|Martin v. Hearst Corporation|Annie Oakley#Libel cases|Depp v. Heard|Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media}}

====Criminal====
{{Main|United States defamation law#Criminal defamation}}

Fewer than half of [[U.S. state]]s have criminal defamation laws, but the applicability of those laws is limited by the [[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]], and the laws are rarely enforced.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Defamation Laws in North America|url=https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/north-america.php|website=Committee to Protect Journalists|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref> There are no criminal defamation or insult laws at the federal level. On the state level, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books: [[Alabama]], [[Florida]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Kentucky]], [[Louisiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Michigan]], [[Minnesota]], [[Mississippi]], [[Montana]], [[Nevada]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Mexico]], [[North Carolina]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oklahoma]], [[South Carolina]], [[Texas]], [[Utah]], [[Virginia]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Puerto Rico]] and [[United States Virgin Islands|Virgin Islands]]. In addition, [[Iowa]] criminalizes defamation through [[case law]] without statutorily defining it as a crime.

''Noonan v. Staples''<ref>''Noonan v. Staples'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7352477566130127331 556 F. 3d 20] (1st Cir. 2009), ''rehearing denied'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=193304978628096442 561 F.3d 4] (1st Cir. 2009); accessed 15 December 2014.</ref> is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defence to libel in the U.S., but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because Staples did not argue First Amendment protection, which is one theory for truth as complete defence, for its statements.<ref>''Noonan'', n.15.</ref> The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties.

====Online====
{{See also|Section 230}}
In response to the expansion of other jurisdictions' attempts to enforce judgements in cases of trans-border defamation and to a rise in domestic [[strategic lawsuits against public participation]] (SLAPPs) following the rise of the internet, the federal and many state governments have adopted statutes limiting the enforceability of offshore defamation judgments and expediting the dismissal of defamation claims. American writers and publishers are shielded from the enforcement of offshore libel judgments not compliant under the ''[[SPEECH Act]]'', which was passed by the [[111th United States Congress]] and signed into law by President [[Barack Obama]] in 2010.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Green|first1=Dana|title=The SPEECH Act Provides Protection Against Foreign Libel Judgments|url=http://www.dros.tech/index.cgi/en/20/https/apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/mobile/firstamendment-SPEECH.html|website=Litigation News|publisher=American Bar Association|access-date=31 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107022114/http://www.dros.tech/index.cgi/en/20/https/apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/mobile/firstamendment-SPEECH.html|archive-date=7 November 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> It is based on the New York State ''2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act'' (also known as "Rachel's Law", after [[Rachel Ehrenfeld]] who initiated the state and federal laws).<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shapiro|first1=Ari|title=On Libel and the Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways|access-date=31 October 2017|agency=Parallels|publisher=National Public Radio|date=21 March 2015}}</ref> Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously.

===Venezuela===
In March 2016, a civil action for defamation led to imposition of a four-year prison sentence on a newspaper publisher.<ref name="WSJ031216">{{cite news|author1=Anatoly Kurmanaev|title=Venezuelan Court Sentences Newspaper Publisher to Prison Four-year sentence raises concerns about press intimidation in the troubled South American country|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-court-sentences-newspaper-publisher-to-prison-1457761103|access-date=16 March 2016|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=12 March 2016|quote=...&nbsp;defamation of a businessman connected to government-owned iron miner Ferrominera Orinoco&nbsp;...}}</ref>

=== Yemen ===
In 2024 Judge and member of the [[Supreme Judicial Council of Yemen|Supreme Judicial Council]], [[Sabah al-Alwani]] was the subject of an online defamation campaign.<ref>{{Cite web |title=مجلس القضاء : القاضي صباح علوان تعرضت لحملة تشهير ظالمة |url=https://www.almontasaf.net/news105826.html |access-date=2025-01-22 |website=المنتصف نت |language=ar}}</ref>