Editing Defamation (section)

===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"/>