Editing Defamation (section)

==Defamation and religions{{anchor |Christian perspective |Religious views}}==
{{see also|Law and religion|Religious law|Divine law|Defamation of religion and the United Nations|Blood libel}}

===Christianity===
{{see also |Canon law}}

[[Christianity|Christian]] [[religious text]]s (such as the [[Epistle of James]]{{snd}}full text on [[s:Bible (Douay-Rheims, Challoner)/James|Wikisource]]), [[catechism]]s (like the one commissioned by the [[Council of Trent]]{{snd}}see "[[s:The catechism of the Council of Trent/Part 3: The Eighth Commandment|The Eighth Commandment]]" from its [[Roman Catechism]]), and [[preacher]]s (like [[Jean-Baptiste Massillon]]{{snd}}see his [[sermon]] titled "[[s:Sermons (Massillon)/Sermon 6|On evil-speaking]]"), have argued against expressions (true and false) that can offend others.

[[Theology|Theologian]] and catechist [[Joseph Deharbe]], in [[s:A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion/Chap. II. The Ten Commandments of God|his interpretation of the Eighth Commandment]], gives practical advice to the [[Glossary of the Catholic Church|faithful]]: The commandment above all forbids giving [[false evidence]] in [[court]]. It is never lawful to tell a lie. In general, forbidden are [[lie]]s, [[hypocrisy]], detraction, calumny, slander, false [[wikt:suspicion|suspicion]], rash [[wikt:judgment|judgment]]; anything that can injure the honour or character of another. With two exceptions: for the good of the guilty, or when necessary to prevent a greater evil{{snd}}and then, only with [[charity (Christian virtue)|charitable]] intentions and without exaggerations.

The ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' has entries for two related concepts, detraction<ref>{{cite Catholic Encyclopedia |wstitle=Detraction |volume=4 |first=Joseph Francis |last=Delany}}</ref> and slander.<ref>{{cite Catholic Encyclopedia |wstitle=Slander |volume=14 |first=Joseph Francis |last=Delany}}</ref>

Defamation and calumny seem to be used as synonyms for slander.

====Detraction====
{{further |Detraction}}

The [[mortal sin]] of damaging another's good name, by revealing their faults or [[crime]]s (honestly believed real by the detractor). Contrasted with calumny, where the assertions are knowingly false.

The degree of sinfulness depends on the harm done, based on three things: 
* The criminality of the thing alleged
* The reputation of the detractor's [[trust (social science)|trustworthiness]]
* The dignity or [[wikt:esteem|esteem]] of the victim
A relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station (a [[bishop]] is given as example) might be a mortal sin. While an offence of considerable magnitude (drunkenness is given as example), attributed to a member of a [[social class]] in which such things frequently happen (a [[sailor]] is given as example), might constitute only a [[venial sin]].

If the victim has been publicly [[sentence (law)|sentenced]], or their misdeeds are already [[wikt:notorious|notorious]], it is [[wikt:lawful|lawful]] to refer to them{{snd}}unless the accused have [[wikt:reformed|reformed]], or their deeds have been forgotten. But this does not apply to particular communities (a [[college]] or [[monastery]] are given as examples), where it would be [[wikt:unlawful|unlawful]] to publish the fact outside said community. But even if the sin is not public, it may be revealed for the [[common good]], or for the benefit of the narrator, listener, or culprit.

The damage from failing to reveal another's sin must be balanced against the evil of {{sic |defamation |expected=detraction}}. No more than necessary should be exposed, and [[fraternal correction]] is preferable. [[Journalist]]s are allowed to criticize public officials. [[Historian]]s must be able to document the causes and connections of events, and strengthen public conscience.

Those who [[aiding and abetting|abet]] the [[principal (criminal law)|principal]]'s defamation, are also guilty. Detractors (or their [[wikt:heir|heirs]]) must provide restitution. They must restore the victim's [[wikt:fame|fame]] and pay them [[damages]]. According to the text, allegations cannot be taken back, reparation methods proposed by theologians are unsatisfactory, and the only way is finding the right occasion for a favourable characterization of the defamed.

====Slander====
Defined as attributing fault to another, when the slanderer knows they are [[innocence|innocent]]. It combines damaging another's reputation and lying.

According to the text, theologians say that the act of lying might not be grievous in itself, but advise mentioning it in [[confession]] to determine reparation methods. The important act is injuring a reputation (hence [[moralism|moralists]] do not consider slander distinct from detraction). The method of injury is negligible.

In a somewhat contradictory opinion, it is stated that there are circumstances where misdeeds can be lawfully exposed, but a lie is intrinsically [[evil]] and can never be justified.

Slander violates commutative justice, so the perpetrator must make [[restitution (theology)|restitution]]. [[Atonement]] seems achievable by [[wikt:retraction|retracting]] the false statement, which undoes the injury (even if this requires exposing the perpetrator as a liar). Compensation for the victim's losses may also be required.

===Islam===
{{see also |Sharia |Application of Sharia by country}}

In a 2018 academic paper,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327671103 |title=Defamation: A comparative study between the Malaysian laws and the Islamic legal principles |author=Hasbollah Bin Mat Saad |date=September 2018 |website=[[ResearchGate]] |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> the author (a law student from the [[International Islamic University of Malaysia]]) argued for harmonization between [[Law of Malaysia|Malaysian laws]] and [[Principles of Islamic jurisprudence|Islamic legal principles]]. [[Federal Constitution of Malaysia#Article 3 – Islam|Article 3]] of the Constitution declares [[Islam]] as the [[state religion]]. [[Federal Constitution of Malaysia#Article 10 – Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association|Article 10]] provides for freedom of speech, with expressly permitted restrictions for defamation-related offences.

First, definitions of defamation from Malaysian and Islamic law are listed. According to the paper, definitions by [[Muslim scholar]]s can include: mislead, accuse of adultery, and embarrass or discredit the dignity or honour of another. In the [[Quran]], many more concepts might be included. The author concludes that Islamic definitions are better for classifying defamatory actions.

Second, freedom of speech is compared with teachings of [[Muhammad]]. Mentioned among others are: [[fragmentation (sociology)|fragmentation of society]], [[divine retribution]] by the [[angel]]s in the [[afterlife]], secrecy, loyalty, and treachery; dignity and honour are again mentioned. The author concludes that freedom of speech should be practised for the sake of justice, and can be lifted if it causes discomfort or unhealthy relationships in society.

Third, Malaysian laws related to defamation are enumerated. According to the author, there were cases with exorbitant [[damages|monetary awards]], interference by third parties, and selective actions against [[political opposition]]; having a negative impact on society.

Fourth, the proposal of harmonization is discussed. The author proposes amending Malaysian laws to conform with Islamic legal principles, under the supervision of a specific department. Mentioned are: Islamic [[customary law]] (''[[Adat]]''), secondary sources of Islamic law (such as ''[[Urf]]''), and "other laws" practised by people in various countries; provided that they are in line with Islamic divine law (''[[Maqasid]]''). The author concludes that in the Malaysian context, this proposed harmonization would be justified by Article 3 of the Constitution (with a passing reference to the "supremacy of the Constitution", apparently guaranteed in Article 4).

Finally, the author enumerates proposed steps to bring about this [[legal reform]]. Defamation would include:
* Libel and slander
* [[Adultery]] (''[[zina]]'') and [[sodomy]] (''[[liwat]]'')
* Acts against honour and dignity that do not fall under the previous category
There would be three types of punishment for defamation:
* Criminal [[hudud|''hadd'' punishments]] (which category seems to include [[corporal punishment|corporal]], [[capital punishment|capital]], [[apostasy in Islam|apostasy]]){{snd}}the author mentions 80 [[flagellation|lashes]]
* Criminal [[tazir|''tazir'' punishments]] (lashing, imprisonment, fine, "other")
* Monetary damages
Other proposed measures include: [[right of reply]], order of [[wikt:retraction|retraction]], mediation via an [[ombudsman]], empowering the [[Human Rights Commission of Malaysia]], finding ways for people to express their views and opinions, education.

===Judaism===
{{see also |Halakha |Rabbinic authority}}

''[[The Jewish Encyclopedia]]'' has two articles on the topic: calumny<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3942-calumny |title=Calumny |author=Kaufmann Kohler |author2=S. Schulman |website=[[The Jewish Encyclopedia]] |access-date=6 August 2023}}</ref> and slander.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9943-libel-and-slander |title=Slander |author=Wilhelm Bacher |author2=Judah David Eisenstein |website=[[The Jewish Encyclopedia]] |access-date=6 August 2023}}</ref>

The two terms seem to be conflated. It is not clear which, if any, corresponds to harmful and true speech, and which to harmful and false speech. Combined with Wikipedia's entry on ''lashon hara'' (terms are spelled somewhat differently), it might be deduced that: 
* calumny, or ''leshon hara'', is true speech that is negative or harmful
* slander, or ''(hotzaat) shem ra'', is untrue speech
The Wikipedia article on ''lashon hara'' equates it to [[detraction]]. And classifies all of slander, defamation, and calumny, as the same{{snd}}and equal to ''hotzaat shem ra''.

====Calumny====
{{further |Lashon hara}}

It is described as a [[sin]], based on both the [[Bible]] ("gossip") and [[rabbinic literature]] (''leshon hara'', "the evil tongue"). Intentionally false [[accusation]]s and also injurious [[gossip]]. Both forbidden in the [[Torah]]. Of the [[Ten Commandments]], relevant is the ninth (in [[Judaism]]): [[Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour]].

According to the article, the {{sic |slanderous |expected=calumnious}} tongue ruins the slanderer, the listener, and the maligned. The [[divine presence]] will be denied to [[lie|liars]], [[hypocrisy|hypocrites]], [[wikt:scoff|scoffers]], and slanderers. Slander is morally equated to [[idolatry]], [[adultery]], and [[murder]].

According to the authors, some [[rabbi]]s saw [[peritonsillar abscess|quinsy]], [[leprosy]] (related to [[Miriam]] speaking ill of Moses), [[stoning]], as deserved punishments. And the [[Midrash]] attributes hardships of various figures (such as [[Joseph (Genesis)|Joseph]], [[Moses]], [[Elijah]], [[Isaiah]]) to sins of the tongue.

As for [[legal remedies]], the article refers to ethical and religious sanctions from the Bible and the [[Talmud]], arguing that the [[law]] cannot repair subtle damage to reputation{{snd}}with two exceptions. Bringing an evil name upon one's [[wife]] (punished with a fine and by disallowing [[divorce]]). [[Perjury]], which would result in the perpetrator receiving same punishment, as the one their false testimony would have brought upon the falsely accused.

The authors conclude that calumny was met with [[righteous indignation]] and penal severity in [[Jewish thought]], and this was in accordance with the ethical principle of treating the honour of others as one's own.

====Slander====
{{further |he:הוצאת שם רע}}

Defined as "false and malicious defamation" ([[circular definition]]) of another's reputation and character, disgracing them in their [[community]]. Here, it is distinguished from ''leshon hara'' by being deliberately false. Punishments include [[fine (penalty)|fines]] and [[damages]].

According to the authors, the [[Law of Moses]] prescribed [[flagellation]] and monetary compensation for a [[husband]] who, without reasonable cause, questioned the [[virginity]] of his newly married wife; and divorce was disallowed (similarly with calumny). The article notes that after the destruction of the [[Temple in Jerusalem]], these laws prescribing fines and [[capital punishment]] ceased.

Rabbinical [[wikt:enactment|enactment]]s 	against slander are described as very stringent. Abusive language might have been exempt from any [[legal liability]], unless it was considered slander (against both the living and the deceased). Fines and [[excommunication]] were a possibility. But [[fasting]] and [[wikt:apology|apology]] also seemed to be acceptable [[atonement]]s.