Defamation

(redirected from defamations)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal.
Related to defamations: slandered

Defamation

 

in criminal law, a crime against the individual, consisting in the spreading of fabrications known to be false that defame another person. For the act to be deemed defamation, it is necessary that the guilty person know that he is spreading false information intended to damage the victim’s reputation, and it is sufficient that the information be communicated to only one person. Under Soviet law, circumstances aggravating responsibility are the spreading of false defamatory fabrications by a person previously convicted of defamation; the spreading of defamatory fabrications in a printed work or a work reproduced by other means; and the spreading of fabrications known to be false combined with the accusation of commission of a crime against the state or other grave crime.

Defamation is punishable by deprivation of freedom or correctional labor for a term of one year or a fine of 50 rubles, or by imposition of the obligation to make amends for the harm caused, or by public censure. In the event of aggravating circumstances, deprivation of freedom for a five-year term may be applied (for example, Criminal Code of the RSFSR, art. 130). In cases involving defamation without aggravating circumstances proceedings are initiated only on the complaint of the victim and are subject to dismissal in the event of reconciliation with the defendant before the court withdraws to render its judgment. In exceptional instances provided for by law, proceedings may be initiated by the procurator even in the absence of a complaint by the victim. The circulation of true though defamatory information does not constitute a crime under Soviet legislation.

References in periodicals archive ?
As these cases demonstrate, being in any type of employment situation with the insured and suffering defamation can trigger the employment-related practices exclusion on the CGL form; however, the defamation must be in an employment context.
The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Approach for Defamation
In multistate defamation actions, where the defamatory statement is contained "in any one edition of a book or newspaper, or any one broadcast over radio or television, exhibition of a motion picture, or similar aggregate communication[,]" (40) there is a strong presumption that the state with the most significant relationship will be "the state where the person was domiciled at the time, if the matter complained of was published in that state.
52) As far as the law of defamation is concerned, "[t]he place of the plaintiff's domicil, or on occasion his principal place of business, is the single most important contact for determining the state of the applicable law.
These proposals for changing choice-of-law principles for cyber-defamation rely on the perceived notion that defamation in cyberspace is somehow different and, therefore, cyber-defamation needs different choice-of-law rules.
Defamation laws in State A, B, and C vastly differ.
As is typical in most critics' analyses, Faucher's analysis of the Restatement (Second) as applied to his cyber-hypothetical identifies nothing unique about the medium of cyberspace that makes the Restatement (Second) any more "long, difficult, and murky" to apply when compared to defamation in real-space.
Consider the following variation on Faucher's cyber-hypothetical involving a defamation dispute in real-space:
In order to answer whether cyberspace offers something unique to choice-of-law doctrines for defamation, making section 6 principles "vague and of little direction" as Faucher suggests, it is imperative to analyze section 6 principles in cyberspace versus section 6 principles in real-space.
92) Such principles may be of greater importance in the tort law area of defamation, however.
For example, newspapers, conscious of the legal consequences of their actions, will often structure their behavior around the availability of defenses and privileges to potential actions brought against them for defamation.
99) However difficult critics may think the Restatement (Second) is to apply to defamation disputes in real-space, this perceived difficulty is in no way more or less difficult to apply in cyber-defamation disputes.