Libel / L1
Honest but false accusation
A blogger writes that a named local businessman (a private figure) is a fraud. The claim is false, but the blogger honestly believed it after reading a news report.
What we score
What can the businessman, or the state, do to the blogger?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | No liability: honest belief or reasonable reliance is a complete defence. |
| 8 | Civil claim possible but the blogger likely wins; anti-SLAPP or fee-shifting protects them. |
| 6 | Civil liability possible on a negligence or fault standard; damages modest. |
| 4 | Civil liability likely: the defendant must prove truth, damages large, costs ruinous. |
| 3 | Administrative penalty. |
| 2 | Criminal defamation: fine or under 1 year. |
| 1 | Criminal defamation: 1 to 5 years. |
| 0 | Over 5 years. |
Evidence used: Defamation statute or code; burden of proof and fault standard; defences; whether defamation is criminal and how often it is prosecuted; typical damages and costs.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 7 | 0 | 7.0 | A private-figure plaintiff must prove at least negligence, and without actual malice can recover only proven actual injury, with no presumed or punitive damages (Gertz v. Robert Welch, 1974). Honest reliance on a published news report usually defeats a negligence claim. About 40 states plus DC have anti-SLAPP laws, many with fee-shifting, but the US 'American rule' otherwise leaves defendants paying their own costs. Criminal-libel statutes in about 15 states need knowledge of falsity, so they do not reach an honest blogger. |
| Czechia | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6.0 | Criminal defamation (§ 184: up to 1 year, or 2 years via the internet) requires intent about the falsity, so an honest belief excludes criminal liability. In civil law the businessman can sue under Civil Code §§ 82 and 2956 for retraction, an apology and compensation for non-pecuniary harm, because a false factual claim is an unlawful interference whatever the author's good faith. Awards are usually modest, and costs follow the loser-pays tariff. |
| Netherlands | 5 | 6 | 0 | 5.6 | Criminal defamation (smaad, art. 261 Sr, up to 6 months; smaadschrift up to 1 year) does not apply where the author 'in good faith could assume the accusation was true and the public interest required it' (art. 261(3)). Calumny (laster, art. 262) requires knowing falsity. Civil liability under art. 6:162 BW turns on a balancing test that weighs whether the statement 'finds support in the available facts', so reliance on a news report is a strong but not complete defence. Typical exposure is a civil claim for rectification or removal with modest damages. |
| Mexico | 5.5 | 6 | −0.5 | 5.3 | Federally and in most states defamation is civil only: moral-damages suits under the civil codes (e.g. art. 1916). In Mexico City a private plaintiff must show the defendant's 'negligencia inexcusable' (art. 32 of the CDMX civil honour law), so honest reliance on a news report is a strong defence. Defamation or calumny is still criminal in Nuevo León, Yucatán and Zacatecas (about 7% of the population). Nuevo León opened about 15,400 honour-crime case files between 2015 and July 2025. Weighting: about 93% scored 6 and about 7% scored 1. |
| New Zealand | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5.0 | Defamation is civil only (criminal libel repealed by Defamation Act 1992 s56). The defendant bears the burden of proving truth (s8); honest belief is no defence, but Durie v Gardiner [2018] NZCA 278 created a defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest, which may help a blogger who relied on a news report. Damages awards are moderate by UK standards, and costs follow the event on a scale that only partly covers actual costs. |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 5 | 0 | 4.6 | Defamation is civil only (criminal libel abolished in E&W and NI by Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s73). Under the Defamation Act 2013 the claimant must show serious harm, but the defendant then bears the burden of proving truth. Honest belief is no defence; the s4 public-interest defence needs a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest, which may or may not cover a blogger repeating a news report about a local fraud. Costs routinely run to six figures. |
| Ireland | 4 | 4.5 | 0 | 4.3 | Defamation is civil only (Defamation Act 2009 s35 abolished criminal libel). The plaintiff need not prove fault; the defendant must prove truth (s16), and honest belief is no defence. The s26 public-interest defence, simplified from 1 March 2026, requires a matter of public interest, a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest (judged by the enquiries made) and good faith, which a blogger repeating a news report may or may not meet. The 2026 Act ended juries in High Court defamation cases, but Irish damages and legal costs remain high. |
| Denmark | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3.4 | Defamation is a crime: § 267 fine or up to 1 year, rising to 2 years under § 268 if a serious accusation is untrue. Since the 2018 reform, § 269 makes it unpunishable if there was 'reasonable cause', weighing whether there was a sufficient factual basis and good faith, so reliance on a news report is a recognised defence. Cases are brought by private prosecution (§ 275), usually with a claim for non-pecuniary compensation. I found no case data on outcomes; df assumes that a defendant who relied on a press report usually escapes punishment but bears litigation cost. |
| Singapore | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2.8 | Civil defamation follows the common law: the claimant proves only a defamatory publication, and the blogger must prove the claim is true (justification). Honest belief, or relying on a news report, is not a defence, and Singapore has not adopted a responsible-journalism defence. Criminal defamation (Penal Code s500, up to 2 years) also applies, though it is rarely used against private disputes. The loser pays costs, and the winner recovers only part of their own. |
| Germany | 1 | 4 | −0.5 | 2.3 | Asserting a damaging fact about someone is criminal 'üble Nachrede' under § 186 StGB unless the fact is proven true: up to 1 year, or up to 2 years if done publicly or online. The defendant bears the risk that truth cannot be proven. Careful reliance on a press report can be a defence as 'safeguarding legitimate interests' (§ 193 StGB). In practice the businessman sends a lawyer's cease-and-desist and gets an injunction regardless of the blogger's good faith, with the blogger paying the fees. A criminal complaint by a private person is usually referred to private prosecution. |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2.5 | −0.5 | 1.8 | Defamation is a criminal offence on complaint (Art. 173, monetary penalty). The accused must prove truth or that they had 'substantial grounds' for an honest belief (para. 2), so relying on a news report is a defence only if the court accepts it as enough checking. Honour-offence complaints have more than doubled in 15 years; since 2024 cantons demand deposits of CHF 500-2,100 from complainants, which filters some cases out. |