Starting to see quite a bit of articles lately talking about people who are in trouble with the law for "Defamation". No legal expert here, but dealing with free speech I thought a person could basically say anything they wanted (minus a few things such as threats of bodily harm, intent to kill, etc...). So what is the difference between Defamation and Free speech when a person is talking about something they want to talk about? Really starting to wonder if it will get to the point no one can speak their mind without "defamation" of someone/something somewhere at some point in time.

I don't know exactly what your referring to here, but "Defamation" means slander. Something is usually slander when we it involves false evidence that makes people think someone look bad. Just saying something is not enough to get charged for slander, or at least that's how I've always thought that's the way it is.

Slander and libel apply in cases where the things being said could severely threaten one's reputation or livelyhood (It has to be false, though). It's always a case-by-case, thing, though; there is no absolute blanket rule.

Edit: Essentially, free speech covers everything but obscenities, threats (to do illegal acts), and slander/libel.

Because it's lying and negatively affects a person's or business's image.

Free speech in the US is usually a question of what the government is legally able to block. Defamation has always been given an exemption, I guess since if you can show that something is both false and harmful then it's not considered worth protecting. However it is not usually a criminal offense -- you have to pay damages but not go to jail. Historically, truth hasn't always been enough to get away with defamation (just saying something harmful could be defamatory even if it was true). But that was changed in the US very early in its history, which was an important step forward in protecting speech.

I read up about it a bit since I was interested and apparently it doesn't have to be a lie (at least in Canada).

Sorry if I wasn't super clear on the issue i'm trying to understand it myself. Basically i've seen news lately saying X person Defamed/slandered Y person and as a result they are going to court. Though i've got a clear definition now where it seems that slander/defamation is a person lying in an attempt to discredit someone while free speech only gives a person the right to say "I don't like that person" with that being it.

Free speech in the U.S. allows you to say stuff that could harm their reputation, so long as it's true. Whether or not it gets taken up in civil court is a different issue, because civil court deals with personal affairs that may not be illegal.

Then there are rules about political and government immunities, but it's been too long for me speak with authority on the subject.

Oh, and I'll honk around 1:00 PM on 94 as I go through Black River Falls

Yeah, law application never has a blanket rule, thankfully (in most cases).

Also, I'll go stand by the interstate, then. Honk at both exits, make sure I see ya!

That's one thing i've been seeing lately where people take free speech to extreme ends of things.

1. Guy walks up to a cop and flips the cop the double bird then gets beat. Guy takes it up in court getting the cop fire because the guy was the "Freedom" of speech aka flipping him the bird.

2. Guy warns people about a "Drunk Driving" stop point telling others to go another route with the cops arresting him. He later gets the case overturned saying he has the right to warn others about check points.

Don't mind free speech and fully enjoy it however it seems that things to get taken a bit too much as of late. Just waiting for a huge clash between naked protesters in the streets of New York City saying they have a right to be nvde as a freedom of speech or some such nonsense as that.

Well it might not necessarily be a lie but something that isn't proven. Like saying "X person lures children to his house and eats them!" might be true, but saying it without any proof at all is defamation.

That or Canada is just weird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6hxZ8ze-eY#t=2m0s

That's pretty much it. You don't get in trouble with the law, but someone might get pissed off and break your nose (even if what you're saying is true).

If you say that company Xray is doing something nasty, the government won't do anything to you*, but Xray is within its rights to sue you. Whether or not they'd win would depend on what proof you have (if what you're saying is true, a judge is likely to side with you), and a few other things such as how you spread the information (slander is pretty much just speaking about it, whereas libel is where you publish it... my understanding is that the former is difficult to build a case against). And even if they do win, it would be a purely civil case and therefore about the worst you would suffer is having to pay a substantial sum to the affected party.

*Except, if you are likely to have broken laws to obtain the information, possibly investigate that crime. 'Course, if what you have brought to light has enough value to outweigh what you did to get it, the latter may be overlooked.

I have heard USA-style 'free' speech called "protected speech", which does sound a little more accurate -- you're not free to say anything you want, but you are protected from punishment for most things.


Obviously, this is only my understanding of how things are in the United States of America, should therefore not be taken as legal advice, and is of limited applicability to other countries (in Australia, for example, freedom of expression is only protected by common law/case precedents, and there are things such as http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=sedition&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=bbDzTr6GEK2BsgLfsbi5AQ&ved=0CCkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=440660d03c957758&biw=1680&bih=859 laws which explicitly limit what one is allowed to say).

Well, I'm not an expert, but I don't think the description of civil and criminal law given above is quite right. Civil law still deals with stuff that is illegal, otherwise it wouldn't be law. It's more that in criminal law, the state will punish you if you are found guilty, e.g. by sending you to prison. In civil law, you just have to pay compensation to another individual. In some situations, the requirement for proof is less strict for civil law. This is why OJ can get away with not going to prison, but then still be found guilty and have to pay compensation in a civil case. In the US, I think defamation is always a matter of civil law, and you won't be sent to prison for defaming someone.

Nope Canada is just weird
Apparently politicians take advantage of it to make money off their oppositions mudslinging campaigns (It's not a criminal offense though so you just pay a settlement I guess) like those stupid attack ads we always see and silencing critics who might fear being held liable and having to pay up for it.
You can't be held liable for opinions that might be considered slander though (so long as it is based on knowledge and not made up), only when it's commenting on actual facts which is kind of weird but kind of understandable I guess as a means of meeting in the middle in the name of free speech, I know I wouldn't want people widely publicizing every mistake I ever made but if they want to give their opinion on me they have the right to do that.

All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law though so take it with a pinch of salt.

Defamation covers both slander and libel. It’s a civil claim you can sue someone for. Truth is a defense to defamation if you can prove it’s true.

The government can only outlaw a few types of speech:

Speech that creates a clear and present danger of immediate harm (shouting fire in a theater)

Speech that is an incitement to violence (kill everyone wearing a yellow shirt)

Obscenity

Harassment

The dissemination of trade secrets

They can also regulate the time, place, and manner of speech (you may hold a protest on Main Street but only on Wednesday at 9am-2pm)

Lying to police or to a court is also illegal. Flipping a cop off is not illegal, per se, though they could argue it’s disorderly conduct, and I wouldn’t advise doing it.

Free speech only became “free” in the 1940s. Before then, you only had the right to free speech within your own home.

Civil cases are for cases where damage may have been done and one seeks compensation. Laws may or may not have been broken. Think about broken contracts, riights, malpractice, defamation, etc. These are non-criminal cases.

Criminal law deals violating laws, statutes, etc.

A brief primer:
http://brighamcity.utah.gov/police_documents/Criminal%20vs%20Civil.pdf

That sounds like what I said*. Slander and libel are matter for the civil courts, so if you lose your case you'll pretty much only be ordered to stop or to [to stop and] pay money to the other party. If you don't obey the court's judgement, that can be a criminal offence. If you used illegal means to obtain the information you've got, that can be an offence (but the actual talking/writing about it is not).

For example, someone who cracks into a corporate computer system and steals information would not (aside from copyright stuff, as far as I'm aware) be committing a crime if he chose to share said information, but he could still be prosecuted for illegally breaching someone's security and the theft itself.

EDIT: *Or what I meant by what I said, to be more precise.

But breaking a civil law is still breaking a law. Contrary to "civil court deals with personal affairs that may not be illegal" and "Laws may or may not have been broken". If you break a contract and lose a civil case, you're judged to have broken the law. Otherwise there would be no basis to prosecute you in court. It is illegal but not necessarily defined technically as a "crime".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

Civil law is fun. Like a labyrinth wrapped in an onion and described by Valve .

But yeah, civil law is still law, and can be broken, though the details can be convoluted ('spose that's true of anything involving lawyers).

Surely only if you're found to be lying, haha.

Also - I don't want to open a can of worms so a simple answer will suffice.
What does racism come under? There has been a lot of accusations in the British news at the moment.
For those who don't know, it's in the world of Football (soccer).
Or is racism a whole other ball game? (excuse the pun)

Interestingly..Can it be claimed as defamation if it is shown not to be true?

Sounds reasonable, if it's regarding stereotypes.

I'd imagine you're protected under free speech to say something like "I hate black people" but not something like "I hate black people because they're stupid". Generalizing an entire race like that could be considered slander, I don't know.

To make everything 100% perfectly clear, I don't condone either of the above statements.

Defamation is a claim that is only available to a person or an organization, not an entire race of people. A race of people cannot sue an individual. A hate group can say derogatory things about any race/ethnicity/religion they'd like as long as they don't call for violence (that would be incitement) -- in the US at least.