The difference between defamation and libel is difficult to navigate. In fact, we must keep in mind the notion of time. The time is not the same for every possible crime. But at the same time the content is also of paramount importance. This is why it appears to victims that some decisions are unfair. They want to start a complaint immediately. However, they are often forced to withdraw it. So they learn the hard way that competence is paramount. The statute of limitations is sometimes so short that they cannot initiate proceedings.
support of lawyer
What appears to be simple and clear is not subject to law. There are many details. The lawyers know them inside out. This is why in some cases they encourage you to give up right away. It should be known that defamation is a pain for the victims. The lawyer will need a great deal of empathy to explain the uncertainties of a process.
defendant’s guilt and defense
The offense of defamation is constituted by any allegation or imputation of a fact which lowers the honor or opinion of the person or body to whom the fact is alleged. Whereas the offense of libel is any derogatory expression, terms of contempt or slander which does not contain any allegation of fact. practically, anyone who writes “Monsieur Dupont is a bastard because he cheats on his wife every Saturday evening with the dancers of a famous cabaret”Will defame
On the other hand, if he had been content to write that “Mr. DuPont is really a bastard”, he would be committing the crime of libel. Mr. DuPont (his attorney in practice) should not err on the side of merit in pursuing legal action against this unscrupulous author. In fact, if he invokes defamation when there is an insult or vice versa, the process in criminal proceedings would be quashed. The defendant will be released.
In cases of defamation, two means of defense can be used by the defendant (the defendant in case of a civil suit). The elements that create the exception of truth. It attests to the genuineness of facts or demonstrates its good faith. For this last means to be successful, the person in question must be especially careful in expression. He must have acted without any personal enmity. Thus, Mrs. Marine Le Pen committed an act of defamation against Mrs. Eva Jolie, reproaching the latter for presenting her as “Heir to her billionaire father by embezzlement” , the Criminal Court held that Ms. Jolie had demonstrated her good faith. He released the candidate of the Environmentalist Party.
Cleaver statute of limitations for victims
In France, a victim of fraud has three years to take action against the perpetrator and file a complaint. However, the victim of defamation or humiliation has been … three months!
The Law on Freedom of the Press of July 29, 1881, still in force, established the suffrage procedure from essential principles of French law. Its purpose is to promote freedom of expression as much as possible. This forces victims of press crimes (defamation, libel mainly) to act very quickly. Indeed, the 1881 law, in its Article 65, provides that these offenses are determined within three months from the date of the disputed publication. This period is the same whether the victim chooses the civil route or the criminal route.
This period is notably shorter than that of common law.
For the record, before civil courts, the classic limitation period is five years and before criminal courts, the limitation period for an offense is three years (ten years for a misdemeanor, one year for a traffic ticket).
Furthermore, for press crimes, this period can be particularly complex to calculate. Indeed, the starting point would be the date of the disputed publication or posting. In short, the moment when the public becomes aware of the controversial text.
According to a legal spec, press offenses are considered instant offences. Theft is a typical example. Here, law ignores reality. In fact, if the public availability of a daily journal is one day, the availability of a book may last for years. However, after three months, defamation contained in the book would be a prescribed offence… Furthermore, it is the same as the publication of objectionable text on a website. Victims of press crimes will be denied the right to proceed before the courts for lack of vigilance in respect of publications that may implicate them.
recipe?
reprint a book
It seems shocking that a reprint of a book is not sufficient to cause a new limitation period to run in favor of the victim, unlike a reprint. In relation to defamatory or offensive material posted online, a 2004 law established a starting point for a statute of limitations specific to the Internet. The period did not begin until the complete suppression of online broadcasting. But the text was censored by the Constitutional Council. The wise have a vague idea of ​​the difference in governance between the traditional written press and the online press.
How to Know the Statute of Limitations for Victims
It can be very complicated for victims of press crimes committed online to know what the statute of limitations is. In their favor, the Paris Court of Appeal, for example, ruled that a change of address of a website was equivalent to a reissue. Thereafter a new limitation period of three months began to run: “by creating a new way of access to its site (operator) has thus renewed the provision of the imputed texts under comparable conditions to the reissue” (Paris, January 29, 2004, Legipresse, April 2004, note A. Lepage). But for the courts, on the other hand, simple updating of a website is not a new publication.
This prescription is very serious for the litigants, especially when it comes to press crime, they have an obligation to respect this rule. They cannot traditionally act on the basis of tort.
However, it should be noted that most serious press offenses are time-barred. Indeed, Article 65-3 of 1881 brings down by one year the statute of limitations for press offenses relating to various forms of racism and discrimination as well as Holocaust denial. So it quadruples the limitation period. This is still three times less than the common law term for classic offences…