Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Defamation
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
====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.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)