Defamatory Statements Research Articles

An Analysis of Amber Heard's Statements in the Johnny Depp Defamation Case

A defamatory act is any act of speech that disparages the reputation of a person. Defamation is committed by conveying speech in the form of a series of words or sentences by accusing a person of certain actions, which are aimed at honor and good name so that it can result in the person's dignity or dignity being humiliated or degraded. This research aims to examine Amber Heard's statements for defaming Johnny Depp. The data analyzed are Amber Heard's several statements that indicates false and defamatory (primary data) and also her testimony during the trial as supporting data (secondary data). The primary data was collected and observed through the articles op-ed which written by Amber Heard in Washington Post and the secondary data was collected through the trial transcript. This study uses a qualitative research method that describes data to determine the elements that can defame a person based on forensic linguistic studies. By using this study, the data that has been selected was analyzed using lexical semantics, pragmatics (speech acts), and linked to legislation based on Virginia Law. The researchers found three statements that proved to be defamatory and acted with obvious malice that have damaged Johnny Depp's reputation. The findings of this study have significant implications, showing that defamatory statements can have a profound and lasting impact on an individual's reputation and public perception, emphasizing the importance of the law in protecting and addressing such acts.

The Only Path to Justice: The Criminal Legal System and Defamation Judgments Related to #MeToo in Sweden

This article presents a study of court judgments involving women who, in connection with #MeToo, identified alleged perpetrators of sexual violence in social media and were later prosecuted for and convicted of criminal defamation in Sweden. We conceptualise the use of social media to share experiences of sexual violence as an informal path to justice. First, we show that this is supported by how court judgments describe women’s reasons for sharing their information, such as telling their story and sharing it with others. Second, according to Swedish defamation law, a truth defence is allowed only if the defamatory statement is first considered to be justifiable, balancing between the defendant’s interest of freedom of speech and the complainant’s interest of honour and reputation. We show that the courts did not assign the interest of speaking out about sexual violence such a significance that it would make the statement justifiable. In effect, the criminal justice system emerges as the only path to justice for victims of sexual violence, simultaneously making perpetrators invisible and victims responsible for telling without naming.

A forensic pragmatic analysis of defamatory statements in Iraqi criminal courts

This paper is going to investigate the defamatory statements that are posted on social media platforms and those statements are considered as a language crime that is usually recognized as a linguistic act. Defamatory statements can be expressed in different ways, including written and spoken words, gestures, or other ways of communication. Consequently, persons who defame others usually base their speech on the words and expressions that constitute their accusation. This paper aims to analyze the language of defamatory messages, which must not only be false but also transmitted to other individuals with the intent of causing harm to the reputation of the targeted person. It also describes how linguists can provide help in defamation cases by applying Shuy’s model to investigate the linguistic tools of speech acts, grammatical referencing, discourse structure, malicious language, and the conveyed and intended meaning of the defamatory messages. The data, which are cases, have been collected from The Criminal Court and The Femidemora Court in Babylon.

An Examination of a Jordainan Public Figure’s Alleged Defamatory Statement

This paper aims at analyzing an accusation of defamation of the Jordanians in a talk show by a public figure. The person accused of defaming the Jordanians is the former head of the Jordanian royal court, Yousef Aldalabeh. The alleged defamatory statement examined in the current study is a description of the relationship between the king of Jordan and his people as a shepherd/sheep relationship. This statement was claimed to be of offensive nature by many Jordanians. To support or refute this accusation, 318 comments on Facebook regarding the use of the phrase ‘shepherd and sheep’ by Aldalabeh were examined. The comments were divided into two general categories. In the first category of comments, this phrase was viewed as being defamatory, whereas the second encompasses comments in which the phrase was found to carry no defamatory meaning. The analysis revealed that 70.8% of the sample of people how commented on this statement found it to carry a defamatory meaning, whereas 29.2% commented that there is no defamatory element in it. Stating that Aldalabeh was not successful in expressing what he has in mind but meant no offense was the most frequent way for indicating that the statement is not defamatory. On the other hand, insulting Aldalabeh, using sarcasm and arguing that he misinterpreted the metaphorical sense of the disputed statement were associated with the highest frequencies for referring to it as being defamatory.

On making, reporting, and repeating defamatory statements

This note starts by distinguishing the making from the reporting of a defamatory statement, and both of these from the repetition of one. Thereafter, having introduced the general rule that a defendant who made or reported a defamatory statement about a plaintiff to a third party cannot avoid liability on the ground that she was merely repeating a statement made by a fourth party, the note goes on to discuss certain already-existing exceptions, and possible exceptions, to this rule. Finally, the note looks at whether our law should acknowledge a further exception, namely where a defendant repeated a defamatory statement by reporting it, while knowing it to be false, but did so only in order to refute it.

Letters of challenge: displayed writing, urban public space and honour culture in seventeenth-century Madrid

Abstract Focusing on seventeenth-century Madrid, this article explores the interplay between urban public space and a specific type of written defamatory statements, the carteles de desafío or letters of challenge, with the aim of examining the implications of this interaction. Letters of challenge were primarily conceived as a communication tool between the participants in duels and challenges. Displayed in public spaces, they could take on new meanings and even replace the combat itself, while at the same time perpetuating the values of a male honour culture that encouraged the use of violence among large sectors of society to settle disputes.

The Devil’s in the Details: How Countries’ Defamation Laws Can (and Can’t) Combat Hate Speech

ABSTRACT Despite the multitude of efforts to combat hate speech, it persists within our global media discourse. It appears in legacy news media content, right-wing media outlets, and social media. In some countries, defamation laws are used to punish those who publish false, defamatory statements about a group defined by its racial, religious, or national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recognizing the potential role civil defamation laws can play in mitigating the problem of hate speech in media, this article offers a comparative legal analysis of existing defamation laws in Brazil, Germany, and the United States. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether and to what extent victims of hate speech might be able to employ these laws to seek justice. Our analysis indicates that criminal libel laws are often abused by political actors, and thus civil laws are preferred. Based on Germany’s experience, we also find that social media platform compliance with this process is essential. Therefore, we propose a solution that expands U.S. libel law to include group defamation and uses carveouts to CDA Section 230 to motivate platform participation in identifying and removing group libel.

Certain aspects of defamation in sports

Introduction. The paper highlights and analyzes the concept of defamation under general legislation and sports law, features of interpretation, consideration of disputes and bringing to sports disciplinary responsibility by sports justice bodies. The purpose of the paper is to determine the specifics of defamation disputes in sports and the consideration of these cases in the bodies of sports justice. Results. It has been established that sports regulations regulate the institution of defamation by directly or indirectly prohibiting it. Sports regulation can manifest itself both through the prohibition of defamation and through obligations to show respect to colleagues, to protect the dignity of people and not to participate in any form of harassment or persecution. In most cases, actual defamation in sports leads to prosecution for harming the reputation of the sport or sports organization. Consideration of this category of disputes is carried out by quasi-arbitration bodies, which are formed by sports federations. During the consideration of disputes by the bodies of sports justice, the question arises whether defamatory judgments are evaluative and whether it is possible to bring disciplinary responsibility for such statements. As a result of the study, it was established that the right to freely express one's views and beliefs does not allow defamatory statements. Also, free expression of one's thoughts can simultaneously be a violation of sports regulations. Conclusion. Defamation in sports is the dissemination of information that does not correspond to reality and degrades the honor, dignity, business reputation of a natural person, business reputation of a legal entity or sports in general. A person may be subject to sports disciplinary responsibility even in the absence of a statement from the injured person, in particular, if such behavior is qualified as behavior that harms the reputation of the sport or the federation.

Speech of Body Shaming, Insult and Defamation in Social Media in the Jurisdiction

The purpose of this study is to analyze the pragmatic power of insulting and defamatory statements. Research is conducted using descriptive and qualitative methods. The information for this study comes from insulting and defamatory statements that were allegedly made by people who violated Articles 45 and 27 of Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law No. 11 of 2008 Concerning Information and Electronic Transactions that are Inrah or Have Legal Effect. The illocutionary speech act theory developed by Searle was the basis for this study. Data delivery techniques utilizing prosperous sampling. This indicates that the linguistic data used in the research is being used in the police investigation report (BAP). The distribution approach and the matching method were both employed in data analysis. The findings revealed a variety of illocutionary speech acts, including self-classification of weight in the form of mockery and censure, as well as appearance appraisal, appearance orientation, the satisfaction of body areas, and overweight obsession.

Ephesis against Eubulides (Dem. 57): Legal Arguments against the Sykophant’s Game

This paper analyses Euxitheus’ legal arguments in the trial against Eubulides (Dem. 57) and proposes a new analysis of the ephesis procedure. Within this framework it argues that Euxitheus’ forensic strategy is not only relevant to the question at issue – to prove his status as a legitimate citizen (gnesios polites), as someone born from two citizen parents – but is also characterised by a strict adherence to the laws and procedure involving his case. The relation between rhetoric and law emerging in Euxitheus’ speech reveals a rhetorical strategy grounded on legal evidence and documents. This essay will especially focus on two important arguments in the speech, that is, the use of religious arguments and the theme of the plot against Euxitheus, which prove extremely enlightening in showing the how the relevant procedure shaped Euxitheus’ arguments. To this aim section II compares Dem. 57and other probable cases of ephesis in order to reassess how the ephesis procedure worked when it arose from a diapsephisis. Section III shows that the arguments used by Euxitheus are to be considered relevant to winning an ephesis case in court.The entire speech is effectively constructed to demonstrate ‘what is true’ against Eubulides’ ‘false accusations’ and ‘defamatory statements’ (57.1), that is, to use legal arguments against ‘the sykophant’s game’: to allege everything but prove nothing’.

Gender differences in stalking, threats and online abuse reported by Victorian politicians

This study sought to estimate the frequency of harassment, threats, assault and stalking faced by Victorian Members of Parliament (MPs), with a focus on gender and experience of online abuse. 46 of 128 MPs completed an online survey (36%). 82% reported experiences of harassment, 85% reported threats of harm, and 35% reported stalking, with most reporting lifestyle changes in response. Female MPs were more likely than males to report all these experiences. Almost 100% of MPs using social media reported online abuse. Abuse about political positions or general defamatory statements were most common (95% and 87% respectively) and were experienced equally by male and female MPs. 50% reported gender-based abuse, with 85% of female MPs reporting such abuse. Results highlight the frequency and impact of abuse and harassment of MPs by the public, and support the need for increased awareness of, and accessibility to, expert advice, threat assessment and interventions.

Wrongfulness in the South African law of defamation

According to some South African delict scholars, the South African law of defamation makes the wrong fulness of a defamatory statement turn on two conditions: first, that the statement caused reputational damage; and, secondly, that the damage caused was not outweighed by the achievement of some greater good. This article proposes an alternative view. According to it, the wrong fulness of a defamatory statement turns on two very different conditions. The first is that the statement represented the defamed person (the plaintiff) as having a worth which is less than the worth which the person ought to be estimated to have. The second is that the person making the statement (the defendant) intended this. The article starts by raising two objections to the scholars’ view. One is that it cannot explain the fact that a defamatory statement can be false yet lawful. The other is that it cannot explain the fact that a defamatory statement may be found to be wrong ful even though it caused no reputational damage. After this, the article goes on to discuss and defend the alternative view’s two conditions — that is, the ‘representation condition’ and the ‘intent condition’. The latter is likely to be the more controversial, as it flies in the face of a scholarly dogma to the effect that wrong fulness does not in any way depend on fault. However, as the article demonstrates, it is impossible to make sense of the wrong fulness-negating defences of privileged occasion, fair comment, and reasonable publication, unless we accept the intent condition.

State regulation distribution of false information in the media space: foreign experience

This paper focuses on necessity to regulate public relations regarding public figures related to defamation issues in the media space. The paper examines the experience of the countries in regulating defamatory content in the media space in general and in relation to public figures in particular. Results of this research are consistent with by the fact that a public figure is indeed limited in his right to respect for honor, dignity and business reputation, but is not deprived of such rights, which provides grounds for legislative consolidation of the protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation of a public figure from defamatory statements in the media space. This article established a connection between information activities on the Internet and defamation disputes regarding public figures. Such a connection consists in the presence in such information of public interest and, as a result, defamatory information causes public resonance. In the process of researching was established that national and European courts, considering each defamation case separately, developed certain conclusions that are guided by the resolution of defamation disputes regarding public figures. Using the example of countries such as Germany, Norway, France and Sweden, it was found that the way to settle disputed defamatory relations involving a public figure is to designate a public figure as a special subject of the said legal relations. In general, this research shows problems of the potential of the right to freedom of expression in the conditions of the functioning of the global Internet network, together with the need to timely regulate such social relations in the Internet network in order to protect the right of other persons to respect their honor, dignity and business reputation. Account the existing world experience, in article formulated recommendations on the regulation of public relations in order to reduce the level of defamation in the media space regarding public figures. With the adoption of the relevant legislative changes, the issue of defamatory content in the media space regarding public figures can be comprehensively resolved, and the relevant relations can be settled in a timely manner.

Correlation with the protection of the authority of criminal judging and social evaluation

Aim: The protection of the authority of the judges is especially relevant today, when the number of threats and other activities seem to be increasing in order to influence the judicial decisions as well as criticize severely the decisions already made by the judges. In addition to the critics of judgments which either go beyond the expression of opinion or not, derogatory, disparaging and defamatory statements occur very often insulting the judges and their work. The question is whether the available legal instruments are sufficient enough to take legal actions against these morally unacceptable or even illegal conducts. The aim of our study is to investigate and explore the relationships between the protection of the authority of criminal justice and social value judgements.Methodology: In addition to formulating thoughts and considerations from the field of the philosophy of law, our conclusions are based on the Act XC of 2017 on the Code of Criminal Procedure.Findings: We started from the basic statement that criminal case-law considered as a legal service to ensure law and order requires social acceptance. However, it can only be guaranteed if moral values and expectations were fulfilled and the “moral ideals” of the society were truly realized. To make it happen, the judge hearing a specific case sometimes should, remaining strictly within the legal framework, depart from the established and uniform case-law in order to adhere to the moral values he or she professes. It reflects partly the fact that courts do necessarily serve social policy goals as well.Value: We thrived to reveal the fact that public trust in the courts is a fundamental interest of both the courts themselves and the citizens. But to strengthen and deepen that trust certain efforts have to be made even by the judiciary. Everything must be done in order that courts can respond appropriately to the developments and changes in social conditions and needs but, from time to time, unique cases might as well emerge when the recognition that social critique actually reflects the critique of the law should be articulated more distinctively.

REFORMULATION OF SUB JUDICE RULE AND PRIOR RESTRAINT OF PUBLICATIONS RESOLVED: A VICTORY FOR PRESS FREEDOM Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecution (Western Cape) 2007 9 BCLR 958 (SCA)

In order to ensure the integrity and accountability of an emerging constitutional democracy, a free and open press is of critical importance. Lately, there has been a growing judicial distrust in the media, with a discernible trend towards “the erosion of free press rights” in South Africa (Danay and Foster “The Sins of the Media: The SABC Decision and the Erosion of Free Press Rights” 2006 SAJHR 563). It is submitted that the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecution (Western Cape) is a victory for the protection of press and media freedom, which will stem the descent into legal censorship. The issue for decision by the court was the extent to which freedom of expression (s 16(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of SouthAfrica, 1996 (hereinafter “the Constitution”)) may be limited to protect the preservation of the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial (s 34 of the Constitution). In his determination of this issue, Nugent JA reformulated the sub judice rule and dealt with the prior restraint of allegedly defamatory statements by the press. The aim of this note is to evaluate the judgment and the potential ramifications for freedom of the press and the media.

The Constitutionality of Taxing Compensatory Damages for Mental Distress When There Was No Accompanying Physical Injury

Since 1919, statutory tax law has excluded from gross income compensatory damages received on account of a personal injury or sickness. The current version of that exclusion is set forth in section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The construction of that exclusion, both by the courts and by the Commissioner, underwent significant alterations over the 80-year period that the provision has existed. The statute itself was amended several times, most recently in 1996. It is the 1996 amendment that has raised a constitutional issue concerning the validity of a portion of the statute.As a consequence of the 1996 amendment, damages received for a personal injury will not be excluded from gross income unless the victim suffered a physical injury. For this purpose, the emotional distress that a victim suffers because of a tortious act does not constitute a physical injury. The House Report to the 1996 amendment states that "emotional distress includes physical symptoms (e.g., insomnia, headaches, stomach disorders) which may result from such emotional distress." Consequently, damages received for the emotional and mental distress suffered because of defamatory statements or because of discriminatory acts are excludible only to the extent that the victim incurred medical expenses thereby. Defamation and discriminatory acts do not cause physical injuries.

Defamation Law and Epistemic Harm in the #MeToo Era

ABSTRACT The #MeToo movement has encouraged victim-survivors of sexual misconduct to make use of social media and mass media journalism to report incidents in ways that are contrary to established legal norms. In part, this is an acknowledgement that traditional legal processes achieve little in responding to gendered harm. However, media companies and victim-survivors have increasingly been sued by alleged perpetrators for defamation. Because Australian defamation law presumes the falsity of alleged defamatory statements, victim-survivors are often required to give evidence in defamation proceedings in an effort to displace the presumption and prove that the allegations were ‘substantially true’ as a defence. This article identifies the issues facing victim-survivors who become involved in defamation disputes arising from allegations of sexual misconduct or gendered harm. It emphasises that in this context, victim-survivors encounter the same testimonial injustice typically experienced in the criminal jurisdiction, which harms them specifically in their capacity as knowers or givers of knowledge.

Avoiding “group libel” in public explanations of an adverse drug event

Most adverse drug events are handled internally by the hospital or pharmacy where they occur. The results may be tragic and the risk of legal liability may be significant, yet the incident is not newsworthy. There is no report in the media, and there is no need for a public explanation. On the other hand, a very few adverse drug events do become newsworthy. They are discovered and reported by the media. The hospital or pharmacy must provide some sort of explanation to assure the public that problems have been identified, solutions have been found, and that all is well. This is sometimes referred to as crisis management. While explaining an adverse event to the public, care must be taken not to disparage personnel who were, or who may have been, involved in the event. A recent Ohio case recognized the applicability of a legal doctrine known as “group libel” when a public statement defames health care personnel following an adverse drug event. A hospital physician was alleged to have ordered large doses of opioids, leading to the deaths of numerous patients. In explaining the hospital’s response to reports of this alleged criminal activity, the hospital released a press statement saying: “The actions that created this tragedy were carried out by a small number of people who have made poor decisions. We can’t disregard colleagues ignoring policies and putting our patients’ safety at risk.” Several days later, a second statement was released to the press: “We have identified a total of 48 nurses and pharmacists whose actions are under review and whose names have been reported to the relevant nursing and pharmacy boards. Out of abundance of caution, we have removed all colleagues who were associated with medication administration for an impacted patient. In total, 30 colleagues are on administrative leave.” Several employees were terminated by the hospital. A group of these former employees then sued the hospital for libel. The former employees contended that they “were made to be scapegoats” and that the hospital had “panicked” as a reaction to the “nationwide opioid epidemic.” The plaintiffs contended that “their personal and professional lives were left in tatters.” The hospital moved the court to dismiss the case based on the lack of identification of any specific person in the press releases. In considering the hospital’s motion to dismiss, the court reviewed group libel. According to the court, “a plaintiff can maintain a defamation case when the defamatory statement is made against a group of people, but only if the group is small enough that the defamation can be understood to have been directed at the individual member, or if the circumstances of the publication reasonably give rise to the conclusion that the member is being particularly referenced.” The court concluded that some, but not all, of the plaintiffs qualified to assert a defamation case under the doctrine of group libel. Due to the way in which the suspensions and terminations were conducted, some of the former employees were individually identifiable as being referenced in the hospital’s press releases, while other former employees were not individually identifiable. The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss. It is understandable that an institution or business would want to allay fears of customers and the public following media reports of wrongdoing. The community needs to trust that there are no continuing threats to public welfare. This case suggests that the explanation, “We had a problem with some staff; they have been disciplined; the problem is solved,” is not the correct approach. This unnecessarily casts aspersions on individual staff members. The better approach is to convey the more generic message that “We have the situation under control. Necessary changes have been made. There are no threats to public safety.”

AT LAST A SOUTH AFRICAN PROPER LAW OF DELICT Burchell v Anglin 2010 3 SA 48 (ECG)

The laws of defamation all over the world share a common denominator – the balancing of two basic human rights: the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation. In spite of this common objective, the laws pertaining to defamation often differ substantially from country to country and courts are often reluctant to apply legal rules or recognize judgments of foreign courts in this regard. Until recently the question as to which law to apply in cases involving delict was neglected in most legal systems. Although this position has changed in many countries as a result of technological development as well as modern communication systems, South African choice of law in delict remained almost non-existent. In spite of the prevalence of the lex fori as connecting factor under the influence of Von Savigny in the past, and until recently in England, it is today generally accepted that the lex loci delicti should, at least as a point of departure, be used as the connecting factor in delict. As Forsyth points out, the application of the lex loci delicti is in accord with the locus regit actum principle as well as the vested rights theory. The application of the lex loci delicti is not without problems however. One problem is that the place where the delict was committed is not always clear. The elements constituting the delict may have their origin in different jurisdictions. A product manufactured in one country, may cause damage in another. Is the lex loci delicti the place where the conduct (manufacturing) took place or the place where the damage was caused? Moreover, harm may be caused in different countries where the defective products are available. Another example is defamation. A defamatory statementpublished in one country may cause damage in another jurisdiction. The problem becomes even more prevalent where a defamatory statement is uploaded on the Internet. A statement uploaded on a server in one country can be and generally is accessible in a multiplicity of countries. To complicate matters further, the statement may cause pecuniary damage in one or more countries and personality infringement in another. Moreover, because the requirements for defamation are closely linked to public policy and a country’s attitude towards the protection of freedom of expression, the statement may be regarded as defamatory in one country but not in another. A second problem is that the lex loci delicti may be perfectly clear, but may be almost irrelevant. The typical example is illustrated in the American case of Babcock v Jackson (191 NE 2d 279 (1963)), where a car, registered and insured in New York with driver and passengers resident in New York, left the road in Ontario during an over-the-border drive with resultant injury to one of the passengers. In this scenario the place where the delict occurred is clearly Ontario but this single fact is less significant than all the other factors that have connection with the delict and the parties, namely New York. The lex loci delicti rule fails to assign an appropriate system in this type of case. That is the reason why the New York court in Babcock applied New York law. In South Africa very little case law exists regarding the choice of law in delict and, until now, regarding choice-of-law in defamation. The few casesthat were reported did not deal with the matter satisfactorily. The matter is therefore still very much res nova and open to our courts to break new ground. This is exactly why the judgment of Crouse AJ in Burchell v Anglin (2010 3 SA 48 (ECG)) can be regarded asa ground-breaking decision.

Online Comments and Defamation

A defamatory statement is a false or untrue statement that harms the reputation of a living person. In the digital environment, defamatory content can be easily shared and may remain available online for a very long period. At first, anonymous Internet communication was predominantly seen as a value in itself – a mechanism that advances the public debate, protects political dissension, and furthers due process. However, the rapid growth of social networks and digital platforms has transformed the content and tone of online interactions. This paper analyzes online comments that may threaten the reputation of a person from a freedom of speech and within the auspices of European law. These comments typically appear as anonymous statements, signed only with a ‘nickname’ not allowing for identification of a poster. The European Union has adopted several pieces of legislation that set the legal status of defamatory online comments. The Directive on Electronic Commerce is of utmost importance given that it regulates the dissemination of online content. However, the European approach to defamation cannot be understood unless the European Union’s system is combined with that of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights’ approach towards defamatory online comments is best demonstrated in its decision on Delfi v. Estonia and MTE v. Hungary.