7 ms·

In the US, truthfulness of a statement is an affirmative defense to libel/defamation, but believe it or not, that is not the case everywhere. Specifically, it i

by pevey 3y ago

In the US, truthfulness of a statement is an affirmative defense to libel/defamation, but believe it or not, that is not the case everywhere. Specifically, it is not the case in the UK.

rsynnott 3y ago
Not sure why people believe this so frequently; it’s completely wrong. Truth is an absolute defence under both systems, though there are significant differences around burden of proof and importance of intent.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > Truth is an absolute defence under both systems My limited understanding (not a lawyer, just a rando) is that truth may be an absolute defense to defamation in the US, but defamation isn't the only ground you want to cover here. In particular, "public disclosure of private facts" seems to be illegal without the subject's consent in some states. [1] I can't tell if the effective law is significantly different in the UK, or whether the main difference is just the semantics of whether it'd fall under "defamation" or something else. [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/public-disclosure-of-private-facts/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat...
mk67 3y ago
Damn, that sounds insane. Is the UK the only country in the world with this? What is the reason?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere, the UK does _not_ have this, but there are libel systems, generally old-fashioned ones, where truth is not an absolute defence (a couple of US states still have criminal libel laws where truth may not be an absolute defence, though use of these presumably wouldn’t be constitutional, say).
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    Italy has criminal libel laws where truth is not an absolute defence. It is routinely used to silence journalists. There is for example currently an high profile case involving Roberto Saviano being sued by the Italian PM. There have been multiple calls to reform it as the law obviously does not conform to European and International standards, but I believe the reforms haven't gone anywhere yet.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    i.e. Japan where even if something is true there needs to be an actual public interest in my publishing of it. [1] > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” Personally I like the UK model where the speaker is on the hook for knowing what they say is true. It shouldn't be too much to ask people to avoid making an unfounded claim ... [1]: https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws
- jeltz 3y ago
  Sweden, and to prevent character assassination. For example, back when that was taboo, by revealing that someone was homosexual.
mnd999 3y ago
Truth is a defence here, but you have to prove that what you said is true, not the other way around. If you made up 100 negative reviews that’s going to be tricky.
detaro 3y ago
I'm fairly sure that's wrong. In the UK, you are expected to prove that it is true for the defense to work though, whereas in the US it's generally enough to be able to argue that you reasonably believed that what you said was true. Hence why the UK is a favorite location for celebrities/companies/... to sue compared to the US: It's a lot harder to defend reporting based on hearsay and indirect conclusions there.

by pevey 3y ago

In the US, truthfulness of a statement is an affirmative defense to libel/defamation, but believe it or not, that is not the case everywhere. Specifically, it is not the case in the UK.

rsynnott 3y ago

Not sure why people believe this so frequently; it’s completely wrong. Truth is an absolute defence under both systems, though there are significant differences around burden of proof and importance of intent.

dataflow 3y ago
> Truth is an absolute defence under both systems My limited understanding (not a lawyer, just a rando) is that truth may be an absolute defense to defamation in the US, but defamation isn't the only ground you want to cover here. In particular, "public disclosure of private facts" seems to be illegal without the subject's consent in some states. [1] I can't tell if the effective law is significantly different in the UK, or whether the main difference is just the semantics of whether it'd fall under "defamation" or something else. [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/public-disclosure-of-private-facts/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat...

mk67 3y ago

Damn, that sounds insane. Is the UK the only country in the world with this? What is the reason?

rsynnott 3y ago
As mentioned elsewhere, the UK does _not_ have this, but there are libel systems, generally old-fashioned ones, where truth is not an absolute defence (a couple of US states still have criminal libel laws where truth may not be an absolute defence, though use of these presumably wouldn’t be constitutional, say).
- gpderetta 3y ago
  Italy has criminal libel laws where truth is not an absolute defence. It is routinely used to silence journalists. There is for example currently an high profile case involving Roberto Saviano being sued by the Italian PM. There have been multiple calls to reform it as the law obviously does not conform to European and International standards, but I believe the reforms haven't gone anywhere yet.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  i.e. Japan where even if something is true there needs to be an actual public interest in my publishing of it. [1] > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” Personally I like the UK model where the speaker is on the hook for knowing what they say is true. It shouldn't be too much to ask people to avoid making an unfounded claim ... [1]: https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws
jeltz 3y ago
Sweden, and to prevent character assassination. For example, back when that was taboo, by revealing that someone was homosexual.

mnd999 3y ago

Truth is a defence here, but you have to prove that what you said is true, not the other way around. If you made up 100 negative reviews that’s going to be tricky.

detaro 3y ago

I'm fairly sure that's wrong. In the UK, you are expected to prove that it is true for the defense to work though, whereas in the US it's generally enough to be able to argue that you reasonably believed that what you said was true. Hence why the UK is a favorite location for celebrities/companies/... to sue compared to the US: It's a lot harder to defend reporting based on hearsay and indirect conclusions there.