Editing Defamation (section)

==UNESCO reports==
===2014===
====Global====
As of 2012, defamation, slander, insult and [[lese-majesty]] laws, existed across the world. According to [[ARTICLE 19]], 174 countries retained criminal penalties for defamation, with full [[decriminalization]] in 21 countries. The [[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]] (OSCE) had an ongoing decriminalization campaign. [[UNESCO]] also provided technical assistance to governments on revising legislation, to align with international standards and best practices.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2014"/>

The use of civil defamation increased, often in lieu of criminal cases, resulting in disproportionate [[fine (penalty)|fines]] and [[damages]], particularly against media and journalists critical of governments. [[Libel tourism]] enabled powerful individuals to limit critical and dissenting voices by shopping around the world for the [[jurisdiction]]s most likely to approve their defamation suits.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2014"/>

As of 2011, 47% of countries had laws against blasphemy, [[apostasy]] or [[defamation of religion]]. According to the [[Pew Research Center]], 32 had laws or policies prohibiting blasphemy, and 87 had defamation of religion laws.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2014"/>

The [[legal liability]] of [[internet intermediary|internet intermediaries]] gained increasing importance. Private companies could be held responsible for [[user-generated content]] that was made accessible through their servers or services, if it was deemed illegal or harmful. Due to uncertain takedown procedures and the lack of legal resources, intermediaries sometimes were excessively compliant with [[takedown notice]]s, often outside the [[legal system]] and with little [[legal recourse|recourse]] for the affected content producer. Intermediaries were at times held criminally liable for content posted by a user, when others perceived it violated [[privacy law|privacy]] or defamation laws. Such cases indicated an emerging trend of [[collateral censorship|preventive censorship]], where companies conducted their own monitoring and filtering to avoid possible repercussions. This contributed to a process of privatized censorship, where some governments may rely on [[private-sector]] companies to regulate online content, outside of electoral accountability and without [[due process]].<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2014"/>

Debate around defamation of religions, and how this impacts the right to free expression, continued to be an issue at a global level. In 2006, UNESCO's executive board adopted a decision on "Respect for freedom of expression and respect for [[sacred]] [[faith|belief]]s and values and [[religious symbol|religious]] and [[cultural icon|cultural]] symbols". In 2011, the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] made further calls for strengthening [[religious tolerance]] and preventing [[hate speech]]. Similar resolutions were made in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, 87 governments agreed on the Rabat Plan of Action, for the prohibition of incitement to hatred.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2014"/>

====Africa====
By 2013, at least 19% of the region had decriminalized defamation. In 2010, the [[African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights]] adopted a resolution, calling on [[African Union]] (AU) member countries to repeal criminal defamation or insult laws. In 2012, the [[Pan-African Parliament]] passed a resolution encouraging AU heads of state to sign the [[Declaration of Table Mountain]], calling for the abolition of insult and criminal defamation laws. Such laws frequently led to the arrest and imprisonment of journalists across the continent. It was signed by two countries. In most cases{{snd}}criminal or civil{{snd}}the [[burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] continued to be on the defendant, and it was rare to have [[public interest]] recognized as a defence. Members of government continued to initiate most such cases. There was a trend towards using civil defamation in lieu of criminal defamation, but with demands for extremely high damages and the potential to bankrupt media outlets{{snd}}although the courts often dismissed such cases. According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, laws against defamation of religion remained on the books in 13 countries (27%), four countries had laws penalizing apostasy, and two had anti-blasphemy laws.<ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2014"/>

====Arab region====
All Arab States retained criminal penalties for defamation. Truth was rarely a defence to defamation and libel charges. In 2012, [[Algeria]] and [[Tunisia]] partially decriminalized defamation by eliminating prison terms. According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, sixteen countries (84%) had laws penalizing blasphemy, apostasy and/or defamation of religion. Lese-majesty laws existed in some parts of the region. There were vaguely worded concepts and terms, interpreted narrowly by the judiciary. The number of bloggers imprisoned was rising. Among some [[Arab states of the Persian Gulf|Gulf States]] in particular, [[citizen journalism|citizen journalists]] and [[social media]] users reporting on political matters were arrested. The charges were defamation or insult, typically with respect to heads of state. There was a trend towards trying journalists and bloggers in [[military court]]s, particularly during and following the [[Arab Spring]]; although this was not limited to countries where such uprisings occurred.<ref name="UNESCO Arab Region Report 2014"/>

====Asia-Pacific====
The majority of countries (86%) had laws imposing criminal penalties for defamation. Six countries decriminalized defamation. Both criminal and civil defamation charges against journalists and media organizations continued. Other legal trends included using charges of terrorism, blasphemy, inciting subversion of state power, acting against the state, and conducting activities to overthrow the state. In 2011, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life found that anti-blasphemy laws existed in eight countries (18%), while 15 (34%) had laws against defamation of religion.<ref name="UNESCO Asia-Pacific Report 2014"/>

====Central and Eastern Europe====
Four countries in [[Central and Eastern Europe]] fully decriminalized defamation. An additional four abolished prison sentences for defamation convictions, although the offence remained in the criminal code.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2014"/>

At the same time, an emerging trend was using fines and [[sanctions (law)|sanctions]]. Civil defamation cases were increasingly used, as evidenced by the number of civil lawsuits and disproportionate fines against journalists and media critical of governments. In at least four countries, defamation laws were used by public officials, including heads of state, to restrict critical media across all platforms. [[Media (communication)|Media]] and [[civil society]] increased pressure on authorities, to stop granting public officials a higher degree of protection against defamation in the media.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2014"/>

Blasphemy was not a widespread phenomenon in Central and Eastern Europe, where {{clarify |text=only one |reason=Which one? Based on the 2017 OSCE Report, there were Poland, Russia, and maybe Georgia and Montenegro. Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, all had blasphemy laws, and they seem to be conveniently ignored in these UNESCO reports - both in CEE and SEE (see 2018 CEE report) statistics. This seems very inaccurate. |date=August 2023}} country still had such a provision. According to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, 17 countries had laws penalizing religious hate speech.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2014"/>

====Latin America and the Caribbean====
The [[OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression|Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression]] of the [[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]] (IACHR) of the [[Organization of American States]] (OAS), recommended repealing or amending laws that criminalize ''desacato'', defamation, slander, and libel. Some countries proposed reforming the IACHR, which could have weakened the office of the [[special rapporteur (disambiguation)|special rapporteur]], but the proposal was not adopted by the [[OAS General Assembly]].<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2014"/>

Seven countries, three of which in the [[Caribbean]], fully or partially decriminalized defamation. Another trend was abolishing ''[[wikt:desacato|desacato]]'' laws, which refer specifically to defamation of public officials. The OAS Special Rapporteur expressed concern over the use of [[terrorism]] or [[treason]] offences against those who criticize governments.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2014"/>

Defamation, [[copyright]], and political issues were identified as the principal motives for content removal.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2014"/>

====Western Europe and North America====
Defamation was a criminal offence in the vast majority of countries, occasionally leading to imprisonment or elevated fines. Criminal penalties for defamation remained, but there was a trend towards their repeal. Between 2007 and 2012, 23 of the 27 countries in [[Western Europe]] and [[North America]] imposed criminal penalties for various exercises of expression (including [[criminal libel]], defamation, slander, insult, and lese-majesty laws{{snd}}but excluding [[incitement to violence]]).<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

Two countries decriminalized defamation in 2009, followed by another in 2010. In another case, there was no criminal libel at the federal level, and a minority of states still had criminal defamation laws. In general, criminal penalties for libel were imposed rarely, with two notable exceptions.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

According to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, eight countries had blasphemy legislation, though these laws were used infrequently.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

The range of defences available to those accused of [[invasion of privacy]] or defamation expanded, with growing recognition of the public-interest value of [[journalism]]. In at least 21 countries, defences to charges of defamation included truth and public interest. This included countries that had at least one truth or public interest defence to criminal or civil defamation (including countries where defence of truth was qualified or limited{{snd}}for example, to statements of fact as opposed to opinions, or to libel as opposed to insult).<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

Civil defamation continued, particularly about content related to the rich and powerful, including public officials and [[celebrities]]. There were a high number of claims, prohibitive [[legal costs]], and disproportionate damages. This prompted a campaign against what was seen by some as [[forum shopping|plaintiff-friendly]] libel laws in the [[United Kingdom]]; and that led to reforming the country's defamation law, resulting in the [[Defamation Act 2013]].<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

Due to legal protection of speech, and practical and jurisdictional limits on effectiveness of controls, censorship was increasingly carried out by private bodies. Privatized censorship by internet intermediaries involved: (i) the widening range of content considered harmful and justified to block or filter; (ii) inadequate due process and [[judicial oversight]] of decisions to exclude content or to conduct [[surveillance]]; and (iii) a lack of transparency regarding blocking and filtering processes (including the relationship between the state and private bodies, in the setting of filters and the exchange of [[personal data]]).<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2014"/>

===2018===
====Global====
As of 2017, at least 130 UNESCO member states retained criminal defamation laws. In 2017, the [[OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media]] issued a report<ref name="OSCE Report 2017"/> on criminal defamation and anti-blasphemy laws among its member states, which found that defamation was criminalized in nearly three-quarters (42) of the 57 OSCE participating states. Many of the laws pertaining to defamation included specific provisions with harsher punishments for speech or publications critical of heads of state, public officials, state bodies, and the state itself. The report noted that blasphemy and religious insult laws existed in around one third of OSCE participating states; many of these combined blasphemy and/or religious insult with elements of hate speech legislation. A number of countries continued to include harsh punishments for blasphemy and religious insult.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2018"/>

Countries in every region extended criminal defamation legislation to online content. [[Cybercrime]] and [[anti-terrorism laws]] passed throughout the world; [[bloggers]] appeared before courts, with some serving time in prison. Technological advancements strengthened governments' abilities to monitor online content.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2018"/>

====Africa====
Between 2012 and 2017, four AU member states decriminalized defamation. Other national courts defended criminal defamation's place in their {{sic |constitution |expected=laws}}. Regional courts pressured countries to decriminalize defamation. The [[ECOWAS Court|ECOWAS Court of Justice]], which had [[jurisdiction]] over cases pertaining to [[human rights]] violations since 2005, set a precedent with two rulings in favour of cases challenging the criminalization of defamation.<ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2018"/>

In the [[landmark case]] of ''Lohé Issa Konaté v. the Republic of Burkina Faso'', the [[African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights]] overturned the conviction of a journalist, characterizing it as a violation of the [[African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights]], the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]], and the treaty of the [[Economic Community of West African States]] (ECOWAS). The journalist was subjected to censorship, excessive fines, and a lengthy imprisonment for defamation. Following this legally binding decision, the country in question proceeded to amend its laws and pay the journalist compensation.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2018"/><ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2018"/>

In 2016, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe declared its criminal defamation laws unconstitutional. In 2017, the [[High Court of Kenya]] declared Section 194 (criminal defamation) of the Penal Code unconstitutional.<ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2018"/>

Civil society and press freedom organizations lobbied for changes to the penal codes in their respective countries{{snd}}sometimes successfully. However, even in countries where libel or defamation were explicitly decriminalized, there were often other laws whose broad provisions allowed governments to imprison journalists for a wide range of reasons (cybercrime, anti-terrorism, incitement to violence, [[national security]]).<ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2018"/>

The majority of countries had defamation laws, that were used to charge and imprison journalists. Media outlets were suspended after publishing reports critical of the government or other political elites.<ref name="UNESCO Africa Report 2018"/>

====Arab region====
Libel, defamation, slander, as well as [[emergency law]]s and anti-terrorism laws, were frequently used as tools of government control on media. Emergency laws often superseded the general law. Defamation laws tended to favour those who could afford costly legal expenses.<ref name="UNESCO Arab Region Report 2018"/>

Google [[transparency report]]s<ref>{{cite web |url=https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/overview |title=Government requests to remove content |website=Google Transparency Report |access-date=1 August 2023}}</ref> showed that several governments in the [[Arab region]] made requests to remove content (such as [[YouTube]] videos), based on allegations of insulting religion and defaming powerful figures.<ref name="UNESCO Arab Region Report 2018"/>

Journalists were predominantly jailed under anti-state laws, with charges ranging from spreading chaos, promoting terrorism, and inciting dissidence, to incitement against the ruling government. Charges for publishing or spreading false news were the next most frequent. Other defamation or religious insult laws were laid against journalists in several cases.<ref name="UNESCO Arab Region Report 2018"/>

====Asia-Pacific====
Most countries in [[South Asia|South]], [[Southeast Asia|Southeast]], and [[East Asia]], had civil and/or criminal defamation laws. Various cases indicated that such laws were used by political interests and powerful elites (individuals and corporations). Cases of online defamation were on the rise.<ref name="UNESCO Asia-Pacific Report 2018"/>

One recently enacted defamation law received condemnation, including from the [[United Nations]]. The law allowed journalists to be jailed if they were found questioning [[Sharia]] law or the affairs of the state. From 2014, criminal defamation laws were challenged, both in South and East Asian countries.<ref name="UNESCO Asia-Pacific Report 2018"/>

====Central and Eastern Europe====
Since 2014, use of criminal defamation and insult laws increased. New [[legal obligation]]s were imposed on [[ISP]]s to monitor content, as a matter of national security{{snd}}particularly in the [[Commonwealth of Independent States]] (CIS) sub-region.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2018"/>

Since 2012, more countries in the [[South-East Europe]] sub-region decriminalized defamation. Of the {{clarify |text=eight countries |reason=Which countries were classified as part of "the SEE sub-region"? This seems very inaccurate. |date=August 2023}}, three repealed all general provisions on criminal defamation and insult, {{clarify |text=four |reason=Which four? There seem to be less than four. This seems inaccurate.|date=August 2023}} retained criminal defamation offences but without the possibility of imprisonment, and {{clarify |text=one |reason=Which one? There seem to be more than one, no matter which classification was used. This seems very inaccurate.|date=August 2023}} retained imprisonment as a possibility. Defamation of public officials, state bodies, or state institutions was criminalized in {{clarify |text=one |reason=Which one? There could be more than one, depending on the classification used; and the provisions seem to be split between them (i.e. they're not all encountered in the same country). This seems inaccurate.|date=August 2023}} country. Other forms of criminal offences existed in some countries: insulting public officials, harming the reputation and honour of the head of state, insulting or defaming the state.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2018"/>

Civil laws to protect the reputation of individuals or their privacy were increasingly used. There was an increase in the number of cases where [[politician]]s turned to the courts, seeking relief for reputational injuries. Civil defamation lawsuits by politicians limited press freedom, in at least one country of the CIS sub-region.<ref name="UNESCO Central and Eastern Europe Report 2018"/>

====Latin America and the Caribbean====
There were attempts to pass legislation allowing content removal based on different claims, including defamation and hate speech. [[Bill (law)|Draft bill]]s were proposed, criminalizing online publication of content deemed as hate speech, and allowing the executive to order take downs of such content. Several states tried to pass legislation creating special criminal offences for online content that could damage the reputation and/or honour of a person. As of 2017, none of these bills were approved.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2018"/>

Public officials throughout the region initiated criminal proceedings against internet users, predominantly against those opposing the [[ruling party]]. Claims were based on defamation laws, including charges against [[meme]]s parodying political personalities.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2018"/>

[[Antigua and Barbuda]] (in 2015), [[Jamaica]] (in 2013), and [[Grenada]] (in 2012), abolished criminal libel. [[Trinidad and Tobago]] partially repealed criminal libel in 2014. The [[Dominican Republic]] removed prison sentences for defamation of government bodies and public officials.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2018"/>

New cybercrime laws were passed in two Caribbean countries. In 2017, one country passed an anti-hate law that was criticized for stifling political debate.<ref name="UNESCO Latin America and Caribbean Report 2018"/>

====Western Europe and North America====
Legal developments varied across the region. While criminal defamation and insult laws were repealed in some countries, stronger defamation laws were produced or reintroduced in other countries.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2018"/>

In [[common law]] countries, criminal defamation laws mostly fell into disuse. In contrast, most [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] countries in Western Europe retained criminal defamation laws. In several Western European countries, defamation was sanctioned more harshly if it involved a public official. In some instances, heads of state were provided more protection to their reputation and punishments were more severe. Some governments strengthened criminal defamation laws to counter online hate speech or [[cyberbullying]].<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2018"/>

The [[European Court of Human Rights]] had limited influence in [[legal reform]]s according to the court's standards, where ([[suspended sentence|suspended]]) prison sentences for defamation were considered a violation of Article 10 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]]. Other [[high court]]s had a mixed record when evaluating criminal defamation and freedom of expression.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2018"/>

According to the 2017 OSCE report,<ref name="OSCE Report 2017"/> criminal defamation laws were in place in at least 21 of the 27 countries in Western Europe and North America. At least 13 states retained statutes penalizing blasphemy or religious insult.<ref name="UNESCO Western Europe and North America Report 2018"/>

===2022===
====Global====
As of 2022, at least 160 countries had criminal defamation laws on the books, down from 166 in 2015. At least 57 laws and regulations across 44 countries were adopted or amended since 2016, containing vague language or disproportionate punishments, threatening online [[freedom of expression]] and [[press freedom]].<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2022"/>

According to reports provided by [[Meta Platforms|Meta]], [[Google]], and [[Twitter]], the number of content removal requests received by those platforms from [[court order]]s, [[law enforcement]], and [[executive (government)|executive]] branches of governments worldwide doubled in the last five years{{snd}}to a total of approximately 117,000 requests in 2020. Of these companies, only Google published data on the rationale for content removal requests made by governments; that data showed "defamation" and "privacy and security" as the leading justifications.<ref name="UNESCO Global Report 2022"/>