Editing Defamation (section)

===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.