Best Answer: Technically, there is no crime for insulting a police officer. I can't think of a single statute or ordinance in my area that would cover it. Having said that, I would like to say that there are other crimes that you can be charged with as a result of the insults.
For Wikipedia's policy on libel, see.Scope of criminal liability.Severity of offense. (also called violation).Crimes against property.Crimes against justice.Crimes against the public.
(such as prohibition of, and ).Crimes against animals.Crimes against the state.Other common-law areas.,Portals.Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a that harms the reputation of, depending on the law of the country, an,. In and some other countries, communicating a true statement can also be considered defamation.Under, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.laws protect against statements which are not technically false, but which are misleading.In some jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a rather than a.
The ruled in 2012 that the libel law of one country, the Philippines, was inconsistent with Article 19 of the, as well as urging that 'State parties to the Covenant should consider the decriminalization of libel'. In, defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable under legislation.A person who defames another may be called a 'defamer', 'libeler', 'slanderer', or rarely a 'famacide'.The term libel is derived from the Latin libellus (literally 'small book' or 'booklet').
See also:Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred., a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state.There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States, defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states (, ) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead.The (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of the, the United States and Canada.In a 2012 ruling on a complaint filed by a broadcaster who had been imprisoned for violating Philippine libel law, the held that the criminalization of libel without provision of a public figure doctrine – as in Philippine criminal law – violates and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the. Early cases of criminal defamation Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of Rex v.
Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of the case told that the jury believed that 'where a writing inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel.' This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify the exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel.Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732).
In this case, the defendant was on trial 'for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews.' The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had a child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that 'since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed.' Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of the crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence.
For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts.History From early times, people have comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner ( convicium adversus bonos mores).The Praetorian Edict, codified circa 130 A.D., declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: 'qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo.' In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. According to, not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of, he asserted that the offense consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ('adversus bonos mores huius civitatis') something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ('quae. Ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret') the person exposed thereto.
Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made. But even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel, and proving his assertions to be true. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation.Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity.
At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.In, slander was punished by cutting out the. Defenses Even if a statement is defamatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.Truth. See also:In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous.
Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.
The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as 'facts' are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. Some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were 'statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact' and second that these statements were false.
Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion, relying on. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false.
If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.Under, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defense only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke, rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation per se; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of the allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defense in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the 'Public Benefit'.In some systems, however, notably the, truth alone is not a defense.It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for. Public interest is generally not 'what the public is interested in', but rather 'what is in the interest of the public'.Noonan v. Staples is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defense to libel in the U.S., but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because Staples did not argue First Amendment protection, which is one theory for truth as complete defense, for its statements. The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties.In a 2012 ruling involving Philippine libel law, the commented, 'Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth.'
Privilege and malice Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.Privilege is any circumstance that justifies or excuses a prima facie tort. It can be said that privilege recognizes a defendant's action stemmed from an interest of social importance – and that society wants to protect such interests by not punishing those who pursue them. Privilege can be argued whenever a defendant can show that he acted from a justifiable motive. While some privileges have long been recognized, the court may create a new privilege for particular circumstances – privilege as an affirmative defense is a potentially ever-evolving doctrine. This section 's tone or style may not reflect the used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's for suggestions.
Main article:Modern libel and slander laws (as implemented in many, but not all, nations) in the United Kingdom, and in the are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of (1272–1307)though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been in full operation.English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation ) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.
Allowable defences are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), absolute privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest) and qualified privilege (where it is thought that the freedom of expression outweighs the protection of reputation, but not to the degree of granting absolute immunity). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth.
Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.Criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the. There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied.
Notably, the Italian anarchist was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.Libel law in England and Wales was reformed by the.Scotland In, as in other jurisdictions that base themselves on the tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is 'veritas'.South America Argentina In, the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter 'Crimes Against Honor' (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as 'the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit' (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not don't constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source.
Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114).
He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to 3 years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd). Brazil In, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as 'defamation' (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), 'calumny' (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) and/or 'injury' (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III) or against a state employee because of his regular duties. Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of 'illegal constraint' (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and 'arbitrary exercise of discretion' (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a. Chile In, the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation (injurias) are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as 'the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution' (Article 412).
If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is 'lower imprisonment' in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 'vital wages' when it refers to a crime, or 'lower imprisonment' in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 10 'vital wages' when it refers to a (Article 413). If it is not written or with publicity, penalty is 'lower imprisonment' in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 15 'vital wages' when it's about a crime, or plus a fine of 6 to 10 'vital wages' when it's about a misdemeanor (Article 414).According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, 'lower imprisonment' is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years.
According to Article 30, the penalty of 'lower imprisonment' in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.Article 416 defines injuria as 'all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt'. Article 417 defines broadly ' injurias graves' (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. 'Grave slander' in written form or with publicity are punished with 'lower imprisonment' in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of 11 to 20 'vital wages'. Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander. Venezuela In March 2016 a civil action for defamation led to imposition of a four-year prison sentence on a newspaper publisher.
North America Canada. Main article:As is the case for most jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in where the private law is derived from French civil law).
In common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In (1995), the rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co.
Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.Regarding defamation on the internet, in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law. Main article:The origins of U.S.
Defamation law pre-date the; one famous 1734 case involving sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law, as before the Zenger case defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.Though the First Amendment of the was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the neglected to apply the First Amendment to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.