[14] The verdict was returned as Not Guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there was not an issue of defamation. Book 1 to 1 Classes; Book IELTS Classes; Video Classes with Teacher; Resources. In Anglo-Saxon England, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue.[30]. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[16] which is usually specifically referred to as "actual malice". Libel is defined as "public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead". 2, no statutorily defined crime, but article 1, § 7 of the, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Economic Community of West African States, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true, Fair comment on a matter of public interest, fundamental right to free speech (Article 19), Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997), intentional infliction of emotional distress, Defamation of religion and the United Nations, Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, "The Law Reform Commission of Ireland – Consultation Paper on the Civil Law of Defamation (see item 360 in bold)", "Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel", "Saudi Arabia passes anti-terror law, banning defamation", http://www.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=261065&set=005B0BC365_3_169&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1, "Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws", "OSCE Report – Libel and Insult Laws: a matrix on where we stand and what we would like to achieve", "European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols", "BBC News, reporting the comments of Professor Michael Geist, July 31, 2006", "IRIS 2006–10:2/1: Ilia Dohel, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. [127], According to an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe official report on defamation laws issued in 2005, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted – 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication,[117] or privilege. On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the specific context is that of a scientific work, literary work, work of art, public information conducted by a politician or a government official, journalistic work, or the defense of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases provided that the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone's reputation.[74]. In a 2012 ruling involving Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented, "Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth."[7]. Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see e.g. [144] However, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), absolute privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest) and qualified privilege (where it is thought that the freedom of expression outweighs the protection of reputation, but not to the degree of granting absolute immunity). Generally, criminal actions proceed civil ones with South Korean police as judicial investigators. Even though some of what The Times printed was false, the court ruled in its favor, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". Available at