{"id":1283,"date":"2016-01-17T14:11:16","date_gmt":"2016-01-17T14:11:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=1283"},"modified":"2025-12-27T22:51:29","modified_gmt":"2025-12-27T22:51:29","slug":"intl-libel","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intl-libel\/","title":{"rendered":"COMPARING US LIBEL WITH OTHER NATIONS"},"content":{"rendered":"<table border=\"1\" width=\"28%\" cellspacing=\"18\" cellpadding=\"4\" align=\"right\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"9%\">\n<p align=\"center\">\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<div align=\"right\">\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\" align=\"right\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Deborah_Lipstadt_Remembering_the_Shoah_presentation.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-4334 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Deborah_Lipstadt_Remembering_the_Shoah_presentation-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a>VINDICATED<\/strong> &#8212; <em>Prof. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University (Atlanta, GA, USA) won <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd\">a libel case brought against her and Penguin Books<\/a>, by David Irving, a British author. Irving had written that it was impossible for the Nazis to have killed so many people in the Holocaust. This was an historical lie, and \u00a0Lipstadt subjected Irving&#8217;s work to serious factual criticism, calling out his bias and Holocaust denial. Irving sued for libel in London and lost in 2000, even though the law at the time put the burden of proof on defendants Lipstadt and Penguin.\u00a0 In 2006, Irving was arrested for Holocaust denial in Austria, where Nazi hate speech is illegal. Lipstadt, to her credit said: &#8220;<\/em><\/span><em style=\"color: inherit; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don&#8217;t believe in winning battles via censorship\u2026 The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth.&#8221;\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\" align=\"right\"><\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: left;\" align=\"right\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;\"><em> \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hdot.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Emory University maintains a web site on the trial<\/a>\u00a0and on Holocaust denial. (Photo courtesy Emory University).\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Aside from outright prior restraint censorship by the government, lawsuits for defamation (libel) \u00a0are\u00a0among\u00a0of the surest ways to chill media criticism 0f public figures and government officials.<\/p>\n<p><em>Here&#8217;s what to look for when comparing defamation laws:<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Tolerance for public debate?<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0Generally, is\u00a0criticism of the government, political parties \u00a0or public officials tolerated or encouraged?<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Civil or criminal?<\/span> Which kind of approach is taken to defamation trials? Criminal libel is considered to be backward and punitive.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Public or private individuals?<\/span> \u00a0Does the law distinguish between public figures (who should expect some criticism and can deflect it) and private individuals\u00a0(who are less able to defend their reputations)?<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Is truth a defense?<\/span> Truth has been a defense in the US and UK systems since the 1730s, but some seditious libel laws would still hold that a truthful criticism of government is more credible and only makes the damage to reputation worse.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">How is fault assessed?<\/span> \u00a0In the US, under the Sullivan standard, public figures must prove that a publisher released defamatory information knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This is a relatively difficult standard to meet and is intended to protect freedom of speech and press.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Burden of proof<\/span> is on which side &#8212; the plaintiff or respondent \/ defendant? (News media is usually\u00a0 the respondent \/ defendant).\u00a0 In the US and many (but not all) European countries, the burden of\u00a0 proof is on the plaintiff.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Group libel?<\/span> \u00a0Can large groups, institutions or political parties \u00a0be libeled, and if so, how? European hate speech laws presume damage to a group&#8217;s reputation as a precursor to violent action. \u00a0In countries without a free press, defamatory statements about political parties or other institutions are seen as undermining their group&#8217;s reputations.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Is harm assumed<\/span> or must it be proven?<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Are there anti-SLAPP or &#8220;whistleblower&#8221; or &#8220;shield&#8221; laws<\/span> to protect critics from retaliatory lawsuits by big companies and institutions suing their critics? (SLAPP is\u00a0 Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Examples of\u00a0differences in defamation law<\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">A list of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Defamation#Internationally\">defamation laws by country<\/a> is found on Wikipedia. \u00a0The Kelly Warner group also has<a href=\"http:\/\/kellywarnerlaw.com\/defamation-around-the-world\/\"> a country-by-country, law by law index<\/a> to defamation. \u00a0Another is found at the <a href=\"http:\/\/medialibel.org\/libel\/other.html\">University of Houston<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Among the highlights and recent changes:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Canada <\/strong>\u00a0&#8212; \u00a0<em>Burden of proof <a href=\"https:\/\/kellywarnerlaw.com\/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law\">is on the defendant\u00a0<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">&#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.thestar.com\/opinion\/commentary\/2016\/01\/17\/want-to-silence-the-truth-sue-for-defamation.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Want to silence the truth? Sue for defamation<\/a>,&#8221; By Hillary Young. Jan. 17, 2016. Toronto Starr. \u00a0 The burden of proof\u00a0should shift to the plaintiff, Young argues.<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hill_v_Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto\">Hill v Church of Scientology<\/a>, 1995, was a libel case against the Church of Scientology in which the Supreme Court of Canada said that Canadian courts would not follow the US actual malice standard from <i><a title=\"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan\">New York Times Co. v. Sullivan<\/a><\/i>, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Japan &#8212;\u00a0<\/strong><em>Criminal and civil; truth is not always a defense. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Libel laws in Japan are meant to protect honor and reputation, according to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tofugu.com\/japan\/sued-in-japan\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">a Feb. 2016 article by \u00a0Kaitlin Stainbrook,<\/a>\u00a0noting that a Google search auto-complete had to be changed by court order after a criminal record kept popping up with a man&#8217;s name. It didn&#8217;t matter whether he had a criminal past.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;In Japanese libel and slander cases, the truth won&#8217;t necessarily help you. Instead, it all comes down to reputation. The Japanese word for defamation is <i>meiyokison <\/i><ruby><span lang=\"ja\">\u540d\u8a89\u6bc0\u640d<\/span><rt><span lang=\"ja\">\u3081\u3044\u3088\u304d\u305d\u3093<\/span><\/rt><\/ruby>, which, when broken down, literally means &#8220;damaged honor&#8221;. Even if a published statement is 100% true, it can still be considered defamatory if it irrevocably hurts the subject&#8217;s reputation and oftentimes the question of truth doesn&#8217;t really enter the equation.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>Mexico &#8212;\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0<em>Reformed\u00a0\u00a0its 1917 statute on criminal libel in 2007. <\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/cpj.org\/americas\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Committee to Protect Journalists<\/a> said this effectively eliminates criminal defamation, libel, and slander at the federal level, making Mexico the second country in Latin America to repeal criminal libel laws. However, libel law is secondary in many nations, since outright government censorship of journalists takes place under sedition laws or in extra-judicial killings, kidnappings and disappearances.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Nigeria<\/strong> &#8212; <em>Sharia law in the north; \u00a0Improvements in press freedom in the south<\/em><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>According to<a href=\"https:\/\/freedomhouse.org\/report\/freedom-press\/2015\/nigeria\"> Freedom House<\/a>: \u00a0<\/em> In recent years, federal courts have attempted to expand legal protections for journalists and provide fair rulings on cases involving the media&#8230; (Yet) criminal and civil laws applicable to the entire country also punish various press and speech offenses, including sedition, criminal defamation, and publication of false news. Several journalists have been charged with criminal defamation in recent years, though in most cases the charges were eventually withdrawn.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"rtejustify\" style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">One recent case\u00a0involved <em>Leadership<\/em> newspaper editor Tony Amokeodo and correspondent Chibuzor Ukuibe, who were charged in 2013 with 11 criminal counts, including forgery, conspiracy to commit a felony, and incitement of public disaffection against the president. If convicted, the journalists could have been\u00a0sentenced to life in prison, but<a href=\"http:\/\/leadership.ng\/news\/478093\/alleged-forgery-court-discharges-acquits-leadership-journalists\"> they were acquitted in 2015.\u00a0 <\/a>\u00a0 This contrasts with the way journalist <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ken_Saro-Wiwa\">Ken Saro-Wiwa<\/a> was executed by the Nigerian government in 1995.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Singapore<\/strong> &#8212;\u00a0<em>\u00a0Libel law is often used to silence critics. <\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">For example, an article about nepotism in Singapore&#8217;s government, published in the US by Bloomberg, led to a libel suit by Singapore&#8217;s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore courts. The Bloomberg service settled the case for over $550,000 in a widely criticized &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.singapore-window.org\/sw02\/020926au.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">swift capitulation<\/a>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>United Kingdom <\/strong><em>&#8212; Press standards are more explicit in the UK, but they are increasingly difficult to harmonize\u00a0on an \u00a0international level\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The story of semi-voluntary media regulation in the UK is the story of one commission after another. \u00a0From the founding of the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Press_Council_(UK)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Press Council<\/a> in 1953, to\u00a0its reorganization into the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Press_Complaints_Commission\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Press Complaints Commission<\/a> in 1990, to the establishment of the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Independent_Press_Standards_Organisation\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Independent Press Standards Organization in 2014<\/a>, each period of media reform followed a major upheaval or scandal in the media. \u00a0The most recent change\u00a0followed the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">News International phone hacking scandal<\/a> around 2011.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The current\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipso.co.uk\/editors-code-of-practice\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">IPSO Editor&#8217;s Code<\/a> is meant to encourage accuracy and ethics while discouraging\u00a0intrusion into individual privacy. \u00a0It is also meant to help individuals deal with the often rowdy &#8220;Red Top&#8221; press and correcting misinformation without bringing on expensive libel lawsuits.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The IPSO&#8217;s regulatory reach was being challenged in the summer of 2016 by the Daily Mail in a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/news\/how-scientologys-skirmish-daily-mail-916679\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">defamation action involving the Church of Scientology <\/a>and actor Tom Cruise. The Mail says the article describing Cruise&#8217;s relationship with the church was generated by its US division, and therefore not subject to IPSO regulation. \u00a0One UK barrister quoted by the Hollywood Reporter said\u00a0that if U.K. publishers have the option of operating an unregulated website section from outside the country, Fleet Street could soon return to the environment that led to the News International hacking scandal of 2011.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">&#8212;&#8212;-<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/gijn.org\/2020\/02\/26\/how-to-successfully-defend-yourself-in-her-majestys-libel-courts\/\">How to successfully defend yourself in Her Majesty&#8217;s libel courts<\/a>, &#8221; by Paul Radu, Global Investigative Journalism Network, Feb. 26, 2020:\u00a0 &#8220;In the US &#8230; courts value and protect freedom of speech and demand the plaintiff prove that libel took place and it caused harm. In the UK, the system is designed to protect reputations, and journalists bear the burden of proving that what they wrote is true or \u201creasonably in the public interest.\u201d That subtle difference means most libel suits fail in America, while many are successful in the UK, making UK courts the jurisdiction of choice for wealthy people shopping for verdicts in their favor or simply trying to drain a journalist of time and money defending themselves against possibly baseless claims.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=ea4fe499-79db-4cc8-a14a-9869a9695cb7\">The Defamation Act two years on<\/a>,&#8221; by Herbert Smith Freehills. \u00a0A survey found that libel cases were down\u00a0by 27% in UK since 2014, when the \u00a0libel reform took place. \u00a0The reforms were needed\u00a0because of the\u00a0selective use of libel and defamation law to punish political speech, as noted in the Matthew Pollack&#8217;s 2008\u00a0\u00a0RSF article <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rcfp.org\/newsitems\/index.php?i=6484\">Libel plaintiffs resort to British court system<\/a>).<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;Since 2002, Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman and banker, has sued or threatened to sue for libel at least 36 times in British courts. Every media outlet or publisher he sued or threatened to sue has apologized, retracted and paid fines.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">One response was a\u00a0New York state law entitled the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rcfp.org\/newsitems\/index.php?i=4878\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Libel Terrorism Protection Act<\/a>\u00a0 which gives American defendants protection from libel suits brought from other nations with fewer free speech protections.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">In 2002,\u00a0\u00a0the Oxford Program in Comparative Media Law and Policy <a href=\"http:\/\/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk\/news\/2009\/defamation-study-news\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">studied the difference in the costs of a defamation lawsuit <\/a>\u00a0in European nations.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>VINDICATED &#8212; Prof. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University (Atlanta, GA, USA) won a libel case brought against her and Penguin Books, by David Irving, a British author. Irving had written that it was impossible for the Nazis to have killed &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intl-libel\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1283","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1283"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6956,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1283\/revisions\/6956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}