Editing Defamation (section)

====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"/>