Dictionary Definition
calumny
Noun
2 an abusive attack on a person's character or
good name [syn: aspersion, slander, defamation, denigration]
User Contributed Dictionary
English
Noun
- a falsification or misrepresentation intended to disparage or discredit another.
- false charges brought about to tarnish another's reputation or standing.
Synonyms
Translations
falsification to discredit another
Extensive Definition
In law, defamation (also called vilification,
slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes
a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that
may give an individual, business, product, group, government or
nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and
defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other
form of communication such as written words or images. Most
jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter
various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless
criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private
facts which arises where one person reveals information which is
not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a
reasonable person. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense
for invasion of privacy."
False light
laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a
publication of
information is
false, then a tort of
defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not
technically false
but is still misleading then a tort of
false light might have occurred. (harmful statement in a fixed
medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic
broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used
internationally, and is used in this article where it is not
necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and
slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction
between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the
defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is
published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign
language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is
published in more durable form, for example in written words, film,
compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is
considered libel.
Criminal defamation
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state.In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico
Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the
Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.
In Canada, though the law has been applied on
only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve
libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison
guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were
charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards
of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.
In Zimbabwe,
"insulting the
President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001)
a criminal offense.
Defenses
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are
circumstances in which such statements are permissible in
law.
Truth
In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.Another important aspect of defamation is the
difference between fact and
opinion. Statements made
as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of
opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages
in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements
were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact"
and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical
defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of
the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or
opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a
court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then,
on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine
whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true
or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever
going to a jury to find facts in the case.
In some systems, however, notably the Philippines,
truth alone is not a defense. Some U.S. statutes preserve
historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel
actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken
the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of
one who is alive." See, for example, Section 18-13-105, Colorado
Revised Statutes
It is also necessary in these cases to show that
there is a well-founded public
interest in the specific information being widely known, and
this may be the case even for public
figures. Public interest is generally not "that which the
public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest
of the public.
Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.There are two types of privilege in the common
law tradition:
- "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
- "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
Other defenses
Defenses to claims of defamation include:- Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
- Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
- Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
- Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
- Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
- Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
- Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
- Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense it that the person has a bad reputation before the libel, hence there was no further damages by the statement.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim
that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of
being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm
someone's reputation is prima facie
not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the
absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.
Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).Under United States law, libel generally requires
five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information
was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified,
the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the
published information is false, and that the defendant is at
fault.
The Associated
Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories
do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill"
local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations
or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to
newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel
lawsuits.
Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with
freedom
of speech, leading to censorship or chilling
effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation
where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or
unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are
necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of
others.
Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different
ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies
when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to
disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has
brought a new focus to the issue.
There is a broader consensus against laws which
criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other
organizations such as the Council
of Europe and
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have
campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize
defamation. The European Court of Human Rights has placed
restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of
expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
One notable case was Lingens
v. Austria (1986).
Defamation laws by jurisdiction
Europe
England
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in
many but not all Commonwealth
nations, in the United
States, and in the Republic
of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation
law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure.
Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so
far back as the reign of Edward
I (1272–1307), though it is unknown whether any generally
applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully-reported
case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at
common law was tried during the reign of James
I. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies
in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be
brought in the High Court for any published statements which are
alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals
in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or
causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement),
fair comment (whether statement was a view that a reasonable person
could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made
in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of
allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a
barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be
false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to
collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure
must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for
the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not
using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to
collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual
malice.
Scotland
In Scots law, as
in other jurisdictions which base themselves on the civil law
tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and
all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of
justification is "veritas".
Germany
In German law, there is no distinction between
libel and slander. Germany is a leader in Europe in enforcement of
its defamation law,, and lawsuits are increasing. The relevant
sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of
State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b
(Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution),
§185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation
with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with
increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189
(Denigration of a deceased person), §190 (Defamation by means of a
non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true
statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194
(The Application for a criminal prosecution under these
paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200
(Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for
allowing certain public figures additional protection against
criticism.
United States
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.Defamation law in the United States is much less
plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the
Commonwealth
countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In
the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not
libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs
between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify
what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of
laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the
state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial
include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or
being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a
defense.
Most states recognize that some categories of
statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people
making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove
that the statement was defamatory.
Singapore
Singapore has perhaps the world's strongest libel laws. The country's leaders have clearly indicated to the public that libel, as they choose to define it from time to time, on the Internet will not be tolerated and that those they deem responsible will be severely punished. On March 6, 1996, the government made providers and publishers liable for the content placed on the Internet. Even the owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million
(approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for
accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the
heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very
quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was
reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the
offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently
confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business
Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled
parties objected.
Australia
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by an implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature. As with England, Australia defines slander as communicating false or insulting words about someone directly or indirectly, verbally or through script.A recent judgment of the High
Court of Australia has significant consequences on
interpretation of the law. On 10 December,
2002, the High
Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet
defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick
v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that
Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian
in his or her Australian reputation could be held accountable under
Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often
(although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in
England) said to be the first of its kind; the case was
subsequently settled.
Slander has been occasionally used to justify
(and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the
punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is
evidence of provocation.
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some
Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the
Gutnick decision. On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar
decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland,
France, Canada and Italy.
Controversial uniform legislation was passed in
Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to
sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The
only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for
profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with
another company.
Canada
As is the case for most Commonwealth
jurisdictions, Canada follows
English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province
of Quebec
has roots in both the English and the French tradition). At common
law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the
esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the
public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are
political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not
necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme
Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the
US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made,
the defendant may avail him or herself to a defense of
justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers
of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent
dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the
statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not
negligent.
In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in
the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for
defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of
probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a
causal connection between the two. A person who has made defamatory
remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The
plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the
remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed
by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a
defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it
was reasonable to believe the statement was true.
Religious law
Related torts
Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "ourageousness", or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract," and "negligent misrepresentation."Criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals,
sedition, false
statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity
in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal
libel actions.
The boundaries of a court's power to hold
individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged
defamatory statements about judges or the court process by
attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well
established in many common law countries.
References
External links
See also
calumny in Czech: Pomluva
calumny in Welsh: Enllib
calumny in German: Verleumdung
calumny in Esperanto: Kalumnio
calumny in Spanish: Difamación
calumny in French: Diffamation
calumny in Hebrew: לשון הרע
calumny in Italian: Diffamazione
calumny in Japanese: 名誉毀損
calumny in Dutch: Laster
calumny in Polish: Oszczerstwo
calumny in Portuguese: Difamação
calumny in Russian: Диффамация
calumny in Swedish: Förtal
calumny in Yiddish: לשון הרע
Synonyms, Antonyms and Related Words
abuse,
animadversion,
backbiting, backstabbing, belittlement, bitchiness, calumniation, cattiness, contumely, defamation, depreciation, disparagement, invective, libel, obloquy, opprobrium, reflection, revilement, scandal, scurrility, slander, stricture, tale, traducement, vilification, vituperation