In Norway, defamation was a crime punishable by up to 6 months` imprisonment or a fine (Criminal Code, Chapter 23, § 246). If the offence is likely to damage a person`s « reputation » and reputation or expose him or her to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be increased to one year, and if the defamation is committed in the press, on the radio or by a particularly aggravating circumstance, The sentence of imprisonment may have been up to two years (§ 247). If the perpetrator acts « against a better knowledge of the child », he is liable to imprisonment for up to three years (art. 248). According to article 251, defamation actions must be brought by the person at fault, unless the defamatory act was directed against an indeterminate circle or a large number of persons, although it may also have been prosecuted by the authorities. [90] [91] Opinions are not considered defamatory. It would be slander or slander to call someone a murderer if they have not been convicted of murder. However, it is not defamatory, slanderous or slanderous to call someone stupid because there is no objective measure of stupidity. People can be convicted of murder, but no court can declare someone stupid. Defamation and defamation are the legal subcategories of defamation.
In general, defamation is defamation in written words, images or other visual symbols on a printed or electronic medium (online or on the Internet). Slander is spoken slander. The advent of the first radio and television communications in the 20th century somewhat complicated this classification, as did the growth of social media from the beginning of the 21st century. Legal systems resolve this tension in different ways, in particular by determining the burden of proof in the case of unsubstantiated allegations. The Internet`s power to disseminate comments that may contain malicious comments has given the issue a new direction. [45] In many jurisdictions, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as facts must be proven false to be defamatory or defamatory. [ref. needed] Proving that negative statements about publicity are true is often the best defense against defamation or defamation lawsuits. Expressions of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely have to use a different type of defence. However, there are dangers associated with the defence of justification; If the defendant defames the plaintiff and then pursues the defense of the truth and fails, it can be said that he has aggravated the damage. In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of behaviour likely to humiliate him in public opinion or to « expose him to the loss of confidence required for a particular position, profession or type of activity ». The penalties include a fine, restriction of liberty and imprisonment of up to one year (Article 212(1) of the Criminal Code).
The penalty is more severe if the offence is committed by the media (section 212.2). [92] If the insult is public and is intended to offend a group of people or a person because of their nationality, ethnic origin, race, religion or lack thereof, the maximum term of imprisonment is 3 years. [93] Procedurally, the judgment on the legality of the evidence becomes less relevant. [89] The Praetorian Edict, codified around 130 AD, stated that a lawsuit could be brought if someone was shouted against morality: « qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo. » [28] In this case, the core of the offence was an unwarranted public statement. According to Ulpian, not all screams were achievable. Based on Labeo`s arguments, he claimed that the offence consisted of shouting something that was likely to cause discredit or contempt (« quae. ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret ») the person exposed to it. [29] Any act likely to discredit another person has led to an actio injurarum. [30] In such a case, the veracity of the statements did not justify the public and offensive manner in which they were made. But also in public affairs, the defendant had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary to denounce public safety through defamation and prove that his allegations were true. [31] The second count contained defamatory statements made in private and, in this case, the offence lay in the content of the attribution, not in the manner in which it was published. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, because no human being had the right to demand legal protection for a false reputation.
In Greece, the maximum prison sentence for defamation, defamation or insult was five years, while the maximum fine was €15,000. [83] In Italy, there have been various honour crimes. The crime of aggression (article 594 of the Criminal Code) concerned the attack on the honour of a person in his presence and was punishable by up to six months` imprisonment or a fine of up to 516 euros. The offence of defamation (Article 595 of the Criminal Code) refers to any other situation in which the reputation in front of many people is damaged and is punishable by up to one year`s imprisonment or a fine of up to €1032, coupled with two years` imprisonment or a fine of €2065 if the offence consists in attributing an established fact. If the offence is committed by the press or any other means of publicity or during a public demonstration, a prison sentence of six months to three years or a fine of at least € 516 will be imposed. Both were crimes « a querela di parte », i.e. the victim had the right to choose at any time, to stop the prosecution by withdrawing the « querela » (formal complaint) or even to continue the act only by a civil action without « querela » and therefore without criminal prosecution. From 15.
As of January 2016, however, violation is no longer a crime, but a misdemeanor, while defamation is still considered a criminal offense. [86] A person who defames another person may be described as « slanderous, » « slanderous, » « slanderous, » or, rarely, « famacid. » The term slander is derived from the Latin libellus (literally « little book » or « little book »). CALSLANDER, misdemeanour. Defamation of a man`s reputation by uttering or writing words which affect his life, office or profession, or which tend to lose his preference in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which cause any other particular prejudice. Nisi Prius` Law, 3. In England, when we speak of the slander of a peer or another great man, we speak of Scandalum Magnatum. Lying and malice are components of slander. Ferry. Abr. Defamation. Written or printed defamation is defamation; See this word. 2.
Here it is proposed to deal only with verbal defamations that refer to 1. The nature of the charge. 2d. The falsity of the accusation.3d. Type of publication. 4. Opportunity; and 5. Wickedness or the motive of slander. 3.-Par. 1.
Actionable words have two descriptions; On the one hand, those that are enforceable in themselves without proof of special damages and, on the other hand, those that are enforceable only in respect of certain actual indirect damages. 4.-1. The words of the first description must assume: 1. The guilt of an offence for which, if the party is guilty, could be charged and punished by the criminal courts; how to call a person a « traitor », a « thief », a « highwayman »; or to say that she is guilty of « perjury », « forgery », « murder » and others. And although the attribution of guilt is general, without specifying the details of the alleged crime, it is punishable. Cro. Jac. 114, 142; 6 R. T. 674; 3 Wils. 186; 2 Ventilation. 266; 2 New Reg.
335. See 3 Serg. & Rawle, 255 7 Serg. and Rawle, 451; 1 binn. 452; 5 binn. 218; 3 Serg. and Rawle, 261; 2 binn. 34; 4 Yeates, p.
423; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 44; Completely. on defamation, 13-42; 8 Fair 248; 13 John. 124; No. 275. 5.-2d. That the party has a disease or a distemper that makes it unfit for society. Ferry. Abr.
Defamation, B 2. A trial can therefore be maintained if a man is treated as a leper. Cro. Jac. 144 Fort. on defamation, 97. But accusing another of a contagious disease is not punishable, because he is not excluded from society for this reason. 2 R. T. 473, 4; 2 1189 Street; Ferry.
Abr. titmouse. Defamation, B 2. An accusation that ridicules a man, harms the enjoyment of society in general and violates those imperfect rights to friendly relations and mutual goodwill that man has towards man is also punishable. Holt on Defamation, 221.6.-3d. The unfitness of a civil servant who holds a position involving profit or emoluments, whether in relation to morality or the inability to perform the duties of the office in such a case, there is an act. 1 salk. 695, 698; Roll, turn off.
65; 2 R. Esp. 500; 5 KB. 125; 4 KB. 16 a; 1 617 Street; 2 Ld. Raym. 1369; Bull. P.O. 4; Holt on Slander, 207; Completely.
on defamation, 100.7.-4. Lack of integrity or capacity, mental or financial, in the exercise of any profession, trade or enterprise in which the party operates is punishable, 1 time. 244 charging a lawyer or artist with incapacity, recklessness or lack of integrity; 3 Wils. 187; 2 sheets Rep. 750; or a clergyman who is a drunkard; 1 binn. 178; is feasible. See Holt on Libels, p. 210; No. 217.
8.-2. The second category includes words that can only be claimed for special damages suffered by the defamed party. Although the law does not permit the conclusion of damage in these cases, if the damage has actually occurred, the injured party may support an action for publicity of falsehood; 1 lev. 53; 1 SID. 79, 80; 3 woods. 210; 2 Leon. 111; unless the assertion is made to assert an alleged claim; Com. Dig. Titmouse. complaint for defamation, D 30; Ferry. From. defamation, B; But he lies when spoken maliciously.
See 1 role, of. 36 1 Saund. 243 Bac. Abr. defamation, C; 8 T. R. 130 8 East, R. 1; Completely. on defamation, 157. 9.-Ab. 2. The accusation must be false; 5 KB.
125, 6; Hops. 253; The falsity of the accusation must be implied until proven otherwise. 2 East, r. 436; 1 Saund. 242. The case where a master presents his servant unfavourably at the request of his personality seems to be an exception, since in the present case there is a presumption that the words were true on the occasion of the speech.
