In a modern progressive society, it would be unreasonable to limit the intent of a legislature to the meaning attributed to the word used at the time of the law, because a modern legislature enacting laws regulating a rapidly changing society must be assumed to be aware of a broader sense that the same concept is associated with the passage of time and revolutionary changes in the social sphere. could attract. economic, political, scientific and other fields of human activity. In fact, if no contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given of the words used to absorb new facts and situations if the words are capable of understanding them. Article 499 stipulates that any person who, by words spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representations, makes or publishes an attribution about a person who intends to damage the reputation of that person, or knows or has reason to believe that such attribution will damage the reputation of that person, except as provided below: defaming that person. There is no problem if the alleged criminal actually intended to cause the particular harm. This becomes more difficult when the accused denies having any real knowledge of it. In assessing conduct, the legal process assumes that the defendant was aware of his or her immediate physical environment and understood the practical cause and effect. A mens rea is presumed if a person reasonably foresaw in the same circumstances that actus reus would occur. This prevents a person from making a defense based on voluntary blindness (note that in the United States, intentional blindness has a slightly different meaning). It is not slander to insinuate anything that is true, that connects a person, if it is for the public good that attribution is to be made or published. Whether it serves the common good or not is a question of fact. In law, the principle of attribution reinforces the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of the law does not excuse.
All laws are published and can be studied in all developed countries. The content of the law is attributed to all persons located in the jurisdiction, no matter how temporary. Any person who, by words or writings, signs or visible gestures, creates or publishes an insinuation to a person with the intention of damaging his or her reputation. The person making such an attribution should have the knowledge or reason to believe that such an attribution will ruin his or her reputation. If accusations or insinuations are made against another person in order to protect his interests, it is not defamation. This chapter attempts to establish that it is appropriate to recognize a conceptual grouping equal to the definition of crime and general defensive measures: the doctrines of imputation. He also discusses the doctrines that make up this conceptual group and demonstrates their collective effect by imputing a necessary criminal element. Moreover, it shows that these doctrines share common theories and justifications beyond their common operational character. In general, the definition of a crime describes the elements that are normally necessary to hold an actor responsible for the offence; This is the paradigm of this liability offence. However, despite the absence of a required element of the definition, an actor may be held liable for the crime if a doctrine attributes the missing elements. Declaration 3. An insinuation in the form of an alternative or ironically expressed may amount to defamation.
It is not defamation to make an attribution on the character of others, provided that the attribution is made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of another person or for the public good. Appendix 4. The attribution may be considered to be prejudicial to the reputation of a person only if, directly or indirectly, in the opinion of another, such attribution diminishes the moral or intellectual character of that person or diminishes his character in relation to his caste or vocation, or diminishes the credit of that person or causes it to be presumed: that the body of that person is in a hideous state. or a state that is generally considered shameful. [2] A justice of the peace or other public servant conducting an inquiry in open court is a court or tribunal within the meaning of the above. A standard example of attribution follows from the principle of joint effort. When two or more people begin a joint exercise, they are also responsible for everything that happens during the execution of their plan. To this end, joint contracting authorities shall be treated as if they knew everything that was going on, whether they were present or not. The mens rea formed by one is assigned to the others in order to make possible a condemnation. For example, suppose a gang conspires to rob a bank.
You stay outside in the car to ensure a quick escape. If the others kill a security guard in the bank, the driver is jointly responsible for the murder. Appendix 2. The fact of making an attribution in respect of an undertaking or association or a group of persons as such may constitute defamation. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code refers to “the attribution of a person”. Insinuation usually means an accusation or allegation that someone has done something wrong. Declaration 1. It may be defamation to attribute anything to a deceased person if attribution would damage that person`s reputation if he or she is alive and intended to hurt the feelings of his or her family or other close relatives. There is a time limit for bringing a defamation action.
It is maintained for up to one year after the act of defamation. A defamation suit can arise for a single publication, but for repeated or multiple publications, the lawsuit can arise each time the defamation is published.
