Disculpa, el contenido de esta página no se puede mostrar en la lengua que seleccionaste.

Ir al contenido principal


Inicio Cyberlibel

Cyberlibel

Cyberlibel definition

Cyberlibel is the act of spreading false information about another person, group, or organization through a computer network. Libel is the act of publicly and maliciously ascribing a crime, vice, or defect (actual or fictional) to a person or disrespecting the memory of someone who is dead. Cyberlibel, like common law libel, is defamatory, shared with a third party, and directly names the victim(s). Cyberlibel poses a complex problem because cyberspace breeds libel without limit . When proven, the consequences in a court of law can be severe depending on the country.

Facts that constitute cyberlibel:

  • An act, omission, status, condition, or circumstance must be ascribed with the intention of causing harm.
  • The defamatory post must be seen by at least one other person besides the author and the person defamed or alluded to.
  • The defamatory post must be malevolent, meaning the author knew it was false.
  • The libelous information must be about a living person, a company, or a dead person, meaning the post must identify the person being defamed, or at least a third person can identify the person being defamed.
  • The libelous information must be likely to make the person defamed look bad, lose respect, or be laughed at.
  • The libel was carried out with the use of a computer system or some other similar technique that may be developed in the future. Smartphones, tablets, and other digital devices also fall under this category.

Common defenses to cyberlibel charges:

  • Justification. This rule applies if it turns out that the defamatory post was truthful.
  • Consent to the publication of the piece. If the plaintiff consented to a defamatory post, the defendant has no case.
  • Fair comment. If the defamatory post is mostly opinion, the person accused of libel won't be charged. This defense is common if the plaintiff is famous.
  • Absolute and qualified privilege. The accused published the post without malicious intent because such posts are part of their job.
  • Innocent dissemination. This is similar to both absolute privilege and qualified privilege in that the accused did not act maliciously when making the post public.