Speech / S4
Insulting the head of state
The person posts that the head of state is a criminal and a pedophile. They have no evidence and present it as their opinion of the leader.
What we score
What can the state do to the author, either on its own initiative or on the head of state's complaint?
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 | Nothing beyond an ordinary civil defamation suit, which the leader cannot realistically win (public-figure protections). |
| 8 | The leader can sue in civil court like any citizen and might win modest damages. |
| 4 | Civil suit likely to succeed with large damages, or special civil protection for officials. |
| 3 | Administrative penalty. |
| 2 | Criminal insult, defamation of officials or lèse-majesté: fine or under 1 year. |
| 1 | Criminal offence: 1 to 5 years. |
| 0 | Over 5 years. |
Evidence used: Lèse-majesté, insult-of-officials and criminal-defamation provisions; any enhanced penalties for insulting politicians; house searches and prosecutions over insults to leaders.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 7 | 8 | 0 | 7.6 | Criminal defamation was repealed federally in 2007. In Mexico City and under Supreme Court doctrine, public officials must prove actual malice ('malicia efectiva', CDMX civil honour law arts. 28-30), but a knowingly baseless 'pedophile' claim could still lose a civil moral-damages suit. Defamation or calumny is still a crime in Nuevo León, Yucatán and Zacatecas (about 7% of the population; Nuevo León: 6 months to 3 years), so the 7% is scored about 1 and the rest about 8. The electoral political-gender-violence (VPG) regime is aimed at speech about women in politics; the President publicly called its use against a citizen 'an excess', and she has brought no suits over insults. |
| United States | 7.5 | 8 | −0.5 | 7.3 | No federal insult or lèse-majesté offence; a president suing for defamation must prove actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard (NYT v. Sullivan). An unsupported factual accusation of pedophilia could meet that test, so a civil suit is possible. Criminal-libel statutes survive in roughly 15 states and are rarely used; a New Hampshire man was arrested in 2021 under one for calling a police chief a coward. The sitting president files multi-billion-dollar suits against media (a $15bn NYT suit was refiled in 2025 and is still pending). In Sept 2025 a Tennessee sheriff jailed a man for 37 days over a Trump meme; the charge was dropped and the county paid an $835k settlement. |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8 | 0 | 6.4 | Seditious and defamatory libel were abolished in E&W and NI in 2010 (Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s73), and there is no lese-majeste offence in practice. Civil defamation remains: the Defamation Act 2013 has no public-figure rule, and the honest-opinion defence (s3) requires the post to indicate a factual basis, so a baseless 'paedophile' claim is likely to lose with large damages. In practice the monarch does not sue, and online insults of the King or PM are not prosecuted. |
| New Zealand | 4 | 8 | 0 | 6.4 | There is no lese-majeste or insult-of-officials offence: seditious offences were repealed in 2008 and criminal libel (Crimes Act ss211-216) in 1993 by Defamation Act 1992 s56. The King or a politician could sue in civil defamation; honest opinion requires the opinion to be genuine and grounded in facts (Defamation Act ss9-11), so a baseless claim of paedophilia is likely to lose. In practice no NZ head of state or prime minister has sued an ordinary poster over such insults. |
| Ireland | 4 | 8 | 0 | 6.4 | Criminal libel was abolished by Defamation Act 2009 s35 and there is no offence of insulting the President or ministers. Civil defamation applies with no public-figure rule: the defendant must prove truth, and honest opinion (s20) fails where the opinion is not based on facts stated or known, so a baseless 'paedophile' claim would likely lose with large damages. In practice Presidents do not sue over online insults and no state action against such posts is reported. |
| Czechia | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4.0 | The special offence of defaming the president was repealed with effect from 1 January 1998. A 2016 bill to restore it failed. The president is protected only by general criminal defamation (§ 184: up to 1 year, or up to 2 years via media). § 184 applies only to verifiable false facts, so a 'pedophile' accusation can qualify but 'criminal' as a value judgment does not. In practice presidents have used civil personality-rights suits (e.g. Zeman v. Bártík), and no recent criminal conviction for insulting a president was found. |
| Denmark | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4.0 | The head of state is the King. Under § 115 the penalties in the defamation chapter are doubled for offences against the King, so § 267 (fine or up to 1 year) becomes up to 2 years, and § 268 (untrue serious accusation, up to 2 years) becomes up to 4 years. Calling him a criminal and a pedophile without evidence is an accusation of fact, not protected opinion. I found no reported prosecution under § 115 in recent decades, so practice is scored on the law plus the absence of cases. |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2.6 | There is no special offence for insulting Swiss officials (Art. 296 protects foreign heads of state only), but criminal defamation applies on complaint: Art. 173 (monetary penalty) and, if knowing falsity is proven, Art. 174 (up to 3 years). A baseless pedophilia accusation meets Art. 173, and the truth defence is unavailable without evidence. Federal Councillors rarely file complaints; in April 2026 Karin Keller-Sutter filed one for insult and defamation over Grok-generated sexist insults, and Bern prosecutors opened a case. |
| Netherlands | 1.5 | 3 | 0 | 2.4 | Lese-majesty (arts. 111-113 Sr) was repealed on 1 January 2020. Insulting the King now falls under the general insult and defamation offences, with the prison maximum raised by one third (art. 267) and no complaint needed (art. 269(2)). Simple insult therefore carries up to 4 months; calling him a criminal and pedophile could also be charged as written defamation (smaadschrift, 1 year + 1/3 = 16 months). Prosecutions are occasional and end in fines or community service. |
| Singapore | 1 | 3 | −1 | 1.2 | Criminal defamation under Penal Code s499/500 carries up to 2 years. In 2021 TOC editor Terry Xu and writer Daniel De Costa were charged after IMDA filed a police report over an article alleging corruption among Cabinet members; they were jailed for 3 weeks in 2022, and on appeal the jail terms were replaced with fines. Prime Ministers also sue critics in civil court: Lee Hsien Loong won S$210,000 in damages from Terry Xu and S$133,000 from blogger Leong Sze Hian in 2021. |
| Germany | 1 | 2 | −1.5 | 0.1 | Calling the Federal President a criminal and a pedophile is 'Verunglimpfung des Bundespräsidenten' under § 90 StGB: 3 months to 5 years (6 months to 5 years if it is defamation), prosecuted with the President's authorisation. For other politicians, § 188 StGB raises insult to up to 3 years and defamation to up to 5. Police search homes over such posts (the 2024 'Schwachkopf' search over a post about Habeck). Some convictions are later overturned: a 7-month suspended sentence over a meme of Faeser was quashed on appeal in January 2026. |