Diff: Defamation Laws by Country

'''Defamation laws by country''' compares how different legal systems deal with false statements that damage reputation. Defamation law normally tries to balance two interests: protection of reputation and protection of expression.

The details vary widely. Some countries treat defamation mainly as a civil wrong. Others also keep criminal offences for insult, malicious gossip or knowingly false statements. Common law countries often focus on publication, identification, defamatory meaning, harm and defences such as truth or honest opinion.

== United Kingdom ==

In England and Wales, defamation is governed by common law and the Defamation Act 2013. Section 1 of the Act requires a statement to have caused, or be likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant's reputation. For a body trading for profit, serious harm means serious financial loss or likely serious financial loss.

Common defences include truth, honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest and privilege. The 2013 Act also restricted some forms of libel tourism by requiring a court to be satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action where the defendant is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, another EU member state or a Lugano Convention state.

== United States ==

United States defamation law is shaped by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'' held that a public official cannot recover damages for a defamatory falsehood about official conduct without proving actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

Private claimants usually face lower constitutional burdens, but the precise rules vary by state. Truth is a defence, and opinion is generally protected where it cannot reasonably be read as a false statement of fact.

== Australia ==

Australia uses largely uniform state and territory defamation legislation. Modern reforms introduced or strengthened a serious harm threshold, a public interest defence and other procedural controls.

Australian law keeps many common law ideas, such as defamatory meaning, identification and publication, but the statutory framework is central. The law remains active in media, social media, workplace and public figure disputes.

== Canada ==

Canadian defamation law is mostly provincial common law and statute. A claimant usually has to show that the words were defamatory, referred to the claimant and were published to at least one other person.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognised a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest in ''Grant v. Torstar Corp.''. The defence protects public interest reporting where the publisher acted responsibly, even if a factual allegation later proves false.

== Germany ==

Germany keeps criminal provisions for insult and defamation-related conduct in the Criminal Code. Sections 185 to 187 cover insult, malicious gossip and defamation. Section 187 covers knowingly asserting or spreading an untrue fact about another person in a way suited to harm reputation or credit.

Civil claims can also be brought. German law places strong weight on dignity and personality rights, while also recognising expression rights.

== European Human Rights Framework ==

In European Convention on Human Rights systems, defamation law is assessed against Article 10, which protects freedom of expression. Article 10 is a qualified right, so restrictions can be lawful where they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society.

The European Court of Human Rights often looks at the subject matter, public interest, status of the person criticised, factual basis, tone, remedy and chilling effect of the restriction.

== Comparison ==

{| class="wikitable"

! Country or system

! Main approach

! Important feature

|-

| United Kingdom

| Civil defamation

| Serious harm threshold under the Defamation Act 2013

|-

| United States

| State tort law shaped by the First Amendment

| Actual malice standard for public officials and public figures

|-

| Australia

| Uniform state and territory statutes

| Serious harm and public interest reforms

|-

| Canada

| Provincial common law and statute

| Responsible communication on matters of public interest

|-

| Germany

| Civil law plus criminal offences

| Criminal Code sections on insult, malicious gossip and defamation

|-

| European Convention system

| Rights balancing

| Article 10 proportionality analysis

|}

* [[Defamation_Law]]

* [[Freedom_of_Speech]]

* [[Case_Law]]

* [[Civil_Liberties]]

== References ==

* [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/1 Defamation Act 2013, section 1]

* [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

* [https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/about-us/engage-with-us/public-consultations/statutory-reviews/review-model-defamation-provisions.html NSW Communities and Justice: Review of the Model Defamation Provisions]

* [https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index.do Supreme Court of Canada: Grant v. Torstar Corp.]

* [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html German Criminal Code, official English translation]

* [https://ks.echr.coe.int/web/echr-ks/article-10 European Court of Human Rights Knowledge Sharing: Article 10]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Human rights]]