Interestingly the statement that “ defamation requires a provably false statement of fact “ is not true in all jurisdictions.
German law makes a distinction between „Verleumdung“ which is indeed like defamation and “üble Nachrede“, which only requires a statement to not be probably true.
As an individual, yes, but for "reporting in the public interest" truth is a defence in Japan.
That's the theory, anyway. In practice, the Japan Sumo Association won a major defamation suit against a tabloid claiming matches were being rigged, despite there being incontrovertible proof that matches were being rigged and the Sumo Association itself expelling a dozen wrestlers for their part in the scheme.
I think that you said “any wealthy person” is telling. That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that?
As for the defamation itself, it’s no more “anything” that can be defamatory even though there is no requirement of falsehood. The intent to defame is still required. Most publications will fail that test (any journalism/public interest etc).
There's a difference between affording a lawyer and affording a lawsuit. Suing someone risks having to pay the defendant's legal fees. And to win a complicated case probably involves hiring a law firm that has the manpower to do tons of research and so on, which costs a lot more than having your will done or looking over a contract, say.
In Finland defamation doesn't (always) require falsehood either and I think the same is true in Sweden as well. However, you are much more likely to get a conviction if the statement you made is a lie. And there has to be also the intent to insult or intent to make other people to despise the victim.
And even non-verbal acts can be defamation. For example showing middle finger to somebody can be defamation and I have heard that using gardening hose to make other person wet could also be defamation.
There is also one other crime in the Finnish law that can make it crime to tell true facts called "yksityiselämää loukkaava tiedon levittäminen" (which means basically spreading information in a way that it violates persons privacy). For example writing in a newspaper that "a woman was molested by her father and now has HIV" could lead to a conviction even if all the facts are true, if that woman has not wanted to make this information public and if readers are able to recognize who this woman is.
> In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!
Is it actually DEFAMATION then, not something akin to "false light"[1]? (I can't define such a term, since I lack both character and fitness, and thus lack a JD, and thus can't understand why some people seem to have different standards of behavior than others in this cursed commonwealth[2])
I don't know about Japan, but some statements may be true but misleading.
For example, saying that someone is involved in a crime it a way that make people think he is guilty when he is, in fact, the victim. For example, "Mr.X is involved in a series of robberies" when he has been robbed.
Other cases where defamation can be invoked is with illegally obtained, private information. For example "Mr.X has been diagnosed with $medical_condition, so...", a clear violation of medical privacy, especially if the one making the accusation is a doctor.
Squirrel related misbehaviour is the example defamatory topic. The article mentions (fictive) squirrel laws in two US states.
To reinforce the legal distictions of jurisdiction I implied a (fictional) legal distinction in lower Saxony on tuesdays. I should have said Thuringia, and sundays. The Regionales-Eichhörnchen-Fummel-Gesetz is remarkably large there. Like the Berlin mountain it has to be seen to be believed.
Ah free speech, the thing that makes every discourse better if there is more of it. I surely envy the nuance and shade you guys have over there in your (political and otherwise) discussion. With it's two sides the US is truly a beacon of free thought. That polarization is not at all harmful to more nuanced positions. /s
Yes and no. I find the contrast between US and German laws to always be interesting, often revealing a very different approach to what's fair and what freedom means.
German law makes a distinction between „Verleumdung“ which is indeed like defamation and “üble Nachrede“, which only requires a statement to not be probably true.