defamation libel securities hate-crime
Is it ever illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent?
<p>Crimes such as defamation usually require that the statement being said is false - truth is an absolute defense.</p>
<p>Are there any situations or jurisdictions where truth is <strong>not</strong> a defense against defamation, incitement to hatred, or similar crimes or torts?</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>Malicious gossip: widely spreading word that someone cheated on their wife. Their employer hears about it and fires them. Otherwise their employer had no reason to know this.</li>
<li>Facts out of context: &quot;Mr XYZ won't deny being a pedophile&quot; but only because he hangs up every time the reporter asks.</li>
<li>Plain old defamation, in some jurisdictions.</li>
<li>Contextual implication: &quot;Black people commit more than 50% of violent crimes&quot; [because they are inherently violent beings and something should be done to control them]</li>
<li>Stock price manipulation: &quot;XYZ Corp is doing terribly&quot; [so is every company in that sector but I want the price of XYZ Corp in particular to go down]</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p>
<p>As well as the general offence of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court" rel="noreferrer">comtempt of court</a> by publishing facts in breach of a court order, there are also two statutory provisions making it an offence if those facts reveal a person's identity (maliciously or not):</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/34/section/1?timeline=false" rel="noreferrer">section 1</a>, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992:</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) Where an allegation has been made that an offence to which this Act applies has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.</p>
<p>(2) Where a person is accused of an offence to which this Act applies, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed (“the complainant”) shall during the complainant’s lifetime be included in any publication.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The relevant offences are listed in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/34/section/2?timeline=false" rel="noreferrer">section 2</a> (being rape and a number of other serious sexual offences).</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/section/49?timeline=false" rel="noreferrer">section 49</a>, Children and Young Persons Act 1933:</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) No matter relating to any child or young person concerned in proceedings to which this section applies shall while he is under the age of 18 be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as someone concerned in the proceedings.</p>
<p>(2) The proceedings to which this section applies are—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a) proceedings in a youth court;</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b) proceedings on appeal from a youth court (including proceedings by way of case stated);</p>
</li>
<li><p>(c) proceedings in a magistrates' court under Schedule 7 to the Sentencing Code (proceedings for breach, revocation or amendment of youth rehabilitation orders);</p>
</li>
<li><p>(d) proceedings on appeal from a magistrates' court arising out of any proceedings mentioned in paragraph (c) (including proceedings by way of case stated).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>[...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a> except as otherwise stated.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is it ever illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a comprehensive answer, but illustrates some examples and counterexamples.</p>
<p><strong>Confidentiality Obligations</strong></p>
<p>The most common circumstance where it is illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent is when the person doing so has a legal duty, that obligates that person to keep certain information secret and maliciously breaches that duty in a way that harms someone whose information was protected.</p>
<p>This could arise, for example:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>out of a contract (such as a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality term in a settlement agreement or a confidentiality provision related to a bid),</p>
</li>
<li><p>a relationship (such as attorney-client, or psychotherapist-patient or an intimate sexual relationship in which photos or videos are taken without consent), or</p>
</li>
<li><p>some other circumstance (such as cheating on an official government exam by spreading the answers, holding a position of trust in a publicly held company, grand jury service, providing health insurance to an insured, working for the IRS or a bank or an adoption agency or a spy or a soldier).</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It could also happen in the absence of any specialized duty, for example, when national security is impaired as a result, or when it has the practical effect of foreseeably aiding and abetting someone imminently about to commit a crime against someone (e.g. telling an assassin or kidnapper that his target is hiding in the closet).</p>
<p><strong>Extortion</strong></p>
<p>Threatening to maliciously disclose truthful information, without actually disclosing the information, to make someone do something that otherwise wouldn't do, is in some circumstances illegal extortion. This is obvious not, however, actual dissemination of true facts with malicious intent. The perpetrators goal is to get compliance not to carry out the threat.</p>
<p><strong>Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress (a.k.a. Outrageous Conduct)</strong></p>
<p>The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress could qualify, but then the gravamen of the tort is not spreading true information, but the manner in which an interaction is framed to humiliate someone.</p>
<p>This tort (and crimes in a handful of jurisdictions) could conceivably include &quot;pushing someone's buttons&quot; by means including dissemination of truthful facts with malicious intent with the purpose of trying to make them commit suicide. In these cases the goal to be accomplished and the intended effect on the vulnerable victim, rather than the actual content of the communication in the abstract is what matters.</p>
<p><strong>Verbal Acts</strong></p>
<p>Some statements that are true in a tautological sense (i.e. by definition) but not because they convey information about pre-existing facts, can give rise to liability.</p>
<p>For example, if I say &quot;Your fired&quot; which becomes true when I say it, and I was not allowed to terminate someone's employment that could give rise to liability.</p>
<p>Or, if I have a contract to deliver widgets and I say, &quot;I'm not going to deliver the widgets&quot; that could give rise to liability as a repudiation of a contract that breaches a contract.</p>
<p>Or, if I have a contract that obligates me to sell something to one person, and I sell it to someone else saying &quot;I hereby sell this to you.&quot;, that is a verbal act which could also create liability for breaching the original contract.</p>
<p><strong>Examples From The Question</strong></p>
<p>The examples given in the question mostly don't give rise to liability. For example, if none of the duties of confidentiality illustrated above apply:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Malicious gossip: widely spreading word that someone cheated on their
wife. Their employer hears about it and fires them. Otherwise their
employer had no reason to know this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, if true.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Facts out of context: &quot;Mr XYZ won't deny being a pedophile&quot; but only
because he hangs up every time the reporter asks.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A few states recognize the tort of &quot;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_light" rel="noreferrer">false light</a>&quot;, although this would be a minority rule. It flows from linguistic context that falsely implies an untrue fact without actually saying so.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Plain old defamation, in some jurisdictions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Germany recognizes insults and disrespect as offenses and classifies them as defamation even though U.S. law would not classify this kind of conduct as defamation. The mere facts alone, moreover, as opposed to the context and manner as well as what is said, impact whether this is wrongful conduct in Germany.</p>
<p>In the U.S. the closest one gets are crimes and torts like disturbing the peace, interfering with a law enforcement officer, harassment, and inciting a riot. Mostly, these offenses are not focused on any particular banned truthful content. They are focused on the intended effect of the communication and the manner and context of the communication.</p>
<p>Historically, statements dishonoring the dead, or pointing out the natural frailties of the disabled could be grounds for civil or criminal defamation in the U.S. although these grounds have virtually vanished and are currently legally in doubt.</p>
<p>Egging someone on to engage in illegal or violent conduct (i.e. taunting them) with truthful statements made with malicious intent could have impacts on the right to self-defense and could mitigate the offense of someone who rises to the taunts (but is rarely a complete excuse).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Contextual implication: &quot;Black people commit more than 50% of violent
crimes&quot; [because they are inherently violent beings and something
should be done to control them]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not under U.S. law.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Stock price manipulation: &quot;XYZ Corp is doing terribly&quot; [so is every
company in that sector but I want the price of XYZ Corp in particular
to go down]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Very unlikely to give rise to liability. There is securities fraud in the form of market manipulation, but generally this doesn't include spreading truthful information.</p>
<p>Usually market manipulation flows from conduct (as opposed to statements of fact or concealment of information) related to securities that is part of a scheme to defraud.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hate crimes</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under U.S. law &quot;hate crimes&quot; are generally always sentence enhancers for other acts that already constitute crimes. Disseminating truthful information with a malicious purpose is essentially never a hate crime.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>incitement to hatred</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This concept is not recognized in U.S. law. U.S. law does impose liability for conduct that is discriminatory based upon improper considerations, but this is more along the lines of liability for verbal acts than malicious distribution of true information.</p>
<p>U.S. law does recognize crimes such as inciting a riot and solicitation of a crime, both of which contemplate urging other people to <em>imminently</em> commit a crime.</p>

<h2>Yes</h2>
<p>The “truth” of a publication is determined not just by whether it is facially true but by the impression that the totality would create in a reasonable person. This is known as defamation by implication. Here’s some discussion of this from <a href="https://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com/defamation-by-implication-is-an-intentional-tort/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Virginia</a>, <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/true-statements-can-be-defamatory-implication/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Iowa</a>, and the general <a href="https://kellywarnerlaw.com/defamation-by-implication" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US</a> on the basis that if its defamation in the USA, its defamation anywhere.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Defamation by implication cases are nuanced. To win, you must have rock solid arguments and evidence to support your side.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For your examples:</p>
<ul>
<li>Malicious gossip - not defamatory. “Someone” cheated on their wife and that’s exactly what you are saying. Your motives for saying it are irrelevant.</li>
<li>Out of context facts - may be defamatory. Your specific example would depend on the total context where the statement is made - in an article about allegations of child abuse, it’s probably defamatory without the specifics. It implies something more than “Mr XYZ gave no comment when asked”.</li>
<li>Contextual implication - may be defamatory. Your particular example because “black people” is not a person who can be defamed. If the statement is made with some relationship to an individual so that the implication is that that person is more likely a criminal then it could be defamation.</li>
<li>Talking down a company - may be defamatory. “XYZ corp is doing terribly” isn’t though because it’s a statement of opinion.</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/france" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-france-tooltip-container">france</a></p>
<p>A bit far from defamation etc. but given that stock manipulation is listed among the OP’s examples, I think &quot;swindling&quot; qualifies:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>L'escroquerie est le fait, soit par l'usage d'un faux nom ou d'une fausse qualité, <strong>soit par l'abus d'une qualité vraie, soit par l'emploi de manoeuvres frauduleuses,</strong> de tromper une personne physique ou morale et de la déterminer ainsi, à son préjudice ou au préjudice d'un tiers, à remettre des fonds, des valeurs ou un bien quelconque, à fournir un service ou à consentir un acte opérant obligation ou décharge.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>It is swindling to deceive a natural or moral person by using a false name or title, <strong>or by abusing a true title, or by fraudulent maneuvers</strong>; such that this person [gives money or does some stuff]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(<a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006418192" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Code Pénal, article 313-1</a>; my emphasis. Under 313-3 an unsuccessful attempt is punished as well.)</p>
<p>&quot;Fraudulent maneuvers&quot; is a rather ill-defined thing. Cases about it regularly reach the Cour de Cassation (<a href="https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/escroquerie-necessite-de-manoeuvres-frauduleuses-determinantes-de-remise-et-anterieures-celle-" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here’s one two weeks ago (March 2023)</a>); most such appeals fail, but there is still enough uncertainty that many litigants will &quot;roll the dice&quot;. Essentially it must be multiple actions or assertions designed to give a false belief to the recipient(s) (a one-time lie is not sufficient).</p>
<p>For instance, suppose a policeman intends to steal money from a bank and then run out of the country. He puts on his uniform, enters the bank, and tells the clerk: &quot;I am from the police; someone is going to try to steal your money today, please give it to me.&quot; He did not lie (he is from the police, and someone - him - is trying to steal the money). Arguably he is not using &quot;fraudulent maneuvers&quot; either. He is still guilty of swindling (regardless of whether he succeeds), because his authority as a policeman is crucial for the scam to work.</p>
