Arab Defamation
Laws
Comparing libel and slander in the
Middle East to international norms
• Dr. Matt J. Duffy, Berry College
• Hadil Maayrouf, CIME
• Dr. Mariam Alkazemi, University
of Florida
This paper was
presented last
November in Irbid,
Jordan, at conference
of Arab-United States
Association of
Communication
Educators.
Konaté v. Burkina Faso
 Journalist reported on corruption of
prosecutor
 Charged, convicted of criminal libel
 Sent to prison, newspaper shutdown
 Appeals in country failed
 But African Court of Human and Peoples’
Rights overturned.
 Said criminal defamation incompatible
with right to free expression.
‘Best practices’ for libel
 Truth must be defense for defamation
 Ensures that people cannot protect good
reputations that they don’t really deserve
 Castells v. Spain (ECHR)
 Court overruled criminal defamation
conviction in part because journalists not
given opportunity to prove truth
 African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights said in 2002: “no one shall
be found liable for true statements.”
‘Best practices’ for libel
 Public figures must withstand more
scrutiny than private figures
 Lingens v. Austria (ECHR)
 The politician “inevitably and knowingly lays
himself open to close scrutiny of his every
word and deed by both journalists and the
public at large, and he must consequently
display a greater degree of tolerance”
‘Best practices’ for libel
 Criminal libel should be avoided
 Particularly in matters of public importance
 Too much of burden on journalism
 Gives too much power to public officials
 Civil lawsuits can result in large fines,
dissuade future defamation
 Castells v Spain:
 … dominant position which the Government
occupies makes it necessary for it to display
restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings,
particularly where other means are available
for replying to the unjustified attacks and
criticisms of its adversaries or the media.
Methodology
 Look at laws of six Arab countries:
 Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait,
United Arab Emirates
 Why Libya? Turmoil could leave next gov’t
open to radical revision of laws
 Examined cybercrime laws, media laws
 And penal codes  most important
 Many just in Arabic/co-author translated
 Why not legal rulings?
 Civil system rather than common law
 Many rulings not long on analysis, few
disseminated, courts not independent
Results
 Laws of 6 nations quite similar
 Only few outliers
 Mostly in penal code, but some
defamation provisions in cybercrime laws,
media laws
 Found nearly all nations not in agreement
with international approach on three
issues
Results
 All of the laws brought criminal penalties
to bear
 Prison time and fines
 Some fines were small ($40 in Libya) while
some were large $270,000 in UAE
 Public officials in all countries except
Jordan receive extra protection from libel
 Libeling a public official is “aggravating
factor,” leads to larger fine, more jail time
Results
 Truth not an absolute defense for libel
 Most countries have some truth-defense
protection if making a claim against a
public “worker”
 But in Lebanon and Libya, truth specifically
ruled not material in libel cases
 Few laws address libel of private figures
 Recent defamation provisions in
cybercrime (UAE) and media (Kuwait) laws
don’t mention truth as a defense
The End!  Slides available
at www.mattjduffy.com
 @mattjduffy
 Have your library order my
book: “Media Law
in the UAE”

Arab Defamation Law

  • 1.
    Arab Defamation Laws Comparing libeland slander in the Middle East to international norms • Dr. Matt J. Duffy, Berry College • Hadil Maayrouf, CIME • Dr. Mariam Alkazemi, University of Florida This paper was presented last November in Irbid, Jordan, at conference of Arab-United States Association of Communication Educators.
  • 2.
    Konaté v. BurkinaFaso  Journalist reported on corruption of prosecutor  Charged, convicted of criminal libel  Sent to prison, newspaper shutdown  Appeals in country failed  But African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights overturned.  Said criminal defamation incompatible with right to free expression.
  • 3.
    ‘Best practices’ forlibel  Truth must be defense for defamation  Ensures that people cannot protect good reputations that they don’t really deserve  Castells v. Spain (ECHR)  Court overruled criminal defamation conviction in part because journalists not given opportunity to prove truth  African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights said in 2002: “no one shall be found liable for true statements.”
  • 4.
    ‘Best practices’ forlibel  Public figures must withstand more scrutiny than private figures  Lingens v. Austria (ECHR)  The politician “inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance”
  • 5.
    ‘Best practices’ forlibel  Criminal libel should be avoided  Particularly in matters of public importance  Too much of burden on journalism  Gives too much power to public officials  Civil lawsuits can result in large fines, dissuade future defamation  Castells v Spain:  … dominant position which the Government occupies makes it necessary for it to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the unjustified attacks and criticisms of its adversaries or the media.
  • 6.
    Methodology  Look atlaws of six Arab countries:  Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates  Why Libya? Turmoil could leave next gov’t open to radical revision of laws  Examined cybercrime laws, media laws  And penal codes  most important  Many just in Arabic/co-author translated  Why not legal rulings?  Civil system rather than common law  Many rulings not long on analysis, few disseminated, courts not independent
  • 7.
    Results  Laws of6 nations quite similar  Only few outliers  Mostly in penal code, but some defamation provisions in cybercrime laws, media laws  Found nearly all nations not in agreement with international approach on three issues
  • 8.
    Results  All ofthe laws brought criminal penalties to bear  Prison time and fines  Some fines were small ($40 in Libya) while some were large $270,000 in UAE  Public officials in all countries except Jordan receive extra protection from libel  Libeling a public official is “aggravating factor,” leads to larger fine, more jail time
  • 9.
    Results  Truth notan absolute defense for libel  Most countries have some truth-defense protection if making a claim against a public “worker”  But in Lebanon and Libya, truth specifically ruled not material in libel cases  Few laws address libel of private figures  Recent defamation provisions in cybercrime (UAE) and media (Kuwait) laws don’t mention truth as a defense
  • 10.
    The End! Slides available at www.mattjduffy.com  @mattjduffy  Have your library order my book: “Media Law in the UAE”