Отправьте статью сегодня! Журнал выйдет 26 июля, печатный экземпляр отправим 30 июля
Опубликовать статью

Молодой учёный

Foreign experience in considering cases on protection of honor and dignity of the individual

Юриспруденция
24.05.2025
17
Поделиться
Библиографическое описание
Кузнецова, Н. В. Foreign experience in considering cases on protection of honor and dignity of the individual / Н. В. Кузнецова. — Текст : непосредственный // Молодой ученый. — 2025. — № 21 (572). — С. 274-276. — URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/572/125784/.


In this article, the author examines the topical legal institution of protection of honor and dignity of the individual, revealing key aspects of protection of honor and dignity in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany. The author investigates the conceptual foundation, conducts a comparative legal analysis of legislation, and examines foreign experience.

Keywords: jurisprudence, protection, honor, dignity, defamation, moral harm.

The proliferation of the internet and social media has become an integral part of modern life, rendering the notion of a humanity without these technologies seemingly implausible. Nevertheless, the concomitant rise of these platforms has been accompanied by a deepening moral crisis, as traditional moral guidelines are eroded, and instances of human dignity humiliation and the dissemination of sensationalism, PR, and hype — a phenomenon wherein public notoriety is attained through provocative and offensive content designed to captivate attention — become increasingly prevalent. The distinctive characteristics of social media, including the absence of content filtering and the capacity for direct user interaction, create an environment in which the spread of defamatory information can have severe and far-reaching consequences for individuals' honor and dignity. In today's digital society, where information is disseminated at an unprecedented velocity, the repercussions of such actions can be devastating for both personal and professional lives.

In light of these developments, the significance of legal mechanisms safeguarding honor and dignity is accentuated, as they are designed to mitigate the consequences of such incidents and ensure the protection of citizens' rights in the digital era. A comparative analysis of various countries reveals that the protection of honor and dignity is approached differently, contingent upon the prevailing legal system. Notably, jurisdictions grounded in Anglo-Saxon law eschew a clear distinction between the protection of honor and dignity, instead subsuming these concepts under the broad rubric of «reputation». Within the purview of English and American law, the notion of reputation is examined through multiple lenses, with key aspects including reputation as property, reputation as honor, and reputation as dignity [1]. The legal safeguard of these facets of reputation in Anglo-Saxon law is effectuated through the lens of defamation, which encompasses the dissemination of false and defamatory information concerning an individual. According to English legal doctrine, the act of disseminating information is deemed to have occurred if it has been communicated to at least one person other than the victim [2].

The evolution of defamation law in the United Kingdom is a complex process that combines elements of common law and statutory law, characterized by numerous reforms throughout its history. The Defamation Act 2013 [3] is the most significant legislative enactment governing defamation relations in modern times, introducing substantial changes to previously existing regulatory provisions and case law. Specifically, the Act revised the existing presumption of general damage in defamation, tightening the requirements. Now, to establish the fact of defamation, it is necessary to demonstrate that the published information has already caused significant harm to the claimant's reputation. Thus, the 2013 Act raised the threshold for proving the seriousness of defamation compared to previous precedents, necessitating the provision of concrete evidence of the negative impact of the disseminated information on the claimant's reputation to hold the perpetrator accountable. In the context of English law, the burden of proof of the veracity of defamatory statements lies with the claimant, while the defendant is not required to prove the truth of the information disseminated. One of the most complex issues in defamation disputes is the distinction between expression of opinion and statement of fact, posing a significant challenge for both defendants and courts.

In the UK's legal system, defamation can entail both criminal and civil liability, although the civil law approach prevails in regulating this category of cases. The central mechanism for protecting honor and dignity in the context of defamation is the institution of compensation for moral harm. A key condition for awarding compensation is the presence of suffering in the claimant caused by defamatory impact, and in the absence of such or material damage, the possibility of recovering compensation becomes impossible. In cases where the claimant has suffered both physical and emotional distress, compensation for moral harm becomes obligatory. Within the framework of defamation cases, three types of compensation for moral harm are distinguished: nominal (symbolic), intended for cases where the claimant has experienced significant moral suffering; «contemptuous» (expressing censure), awarded upon formal satisfaction of the claim; and punitive compensation, applied in all other cases [4]. In the United States, compensation for moral harm is awarded for causing emotional distress that has affected a person's physical condition; if there is no impact on physical condition, compensation will not be paid. Additionally, American law provides for a separate category of torts where compensation for emotional distress can be awarded without the need for accompanying physical suffering or financial losses. These features significantly distinguish American law from British law, and at the same time, the American approach converges with the Russian concept of moral harm.

In the Romano-Germanic legal system, unlike the Anglo-Saxon legal approach, the determination of the amount of compensation for moral harm is carried out through analysis and comparison with previously adopted court decisions in similar cases, rather than according to a fixed tariff schedule. German legislation does not contain special chapters or articles that provide for civil law protection of honor and dignity, nor are there articles dedicated to the protection of non-material goods and non-property rights. It is also worth noting that in countries with a Romano-Germanic legal system, defamation is primarily considered a basis for applying criminal law norms, where significant penalties are provided for such acts. Furthermore, in Germany, compensation for moral harm is perceived as a kind of «money for suffering». Here, strict conditions are established for satisfying claims in defamation cases, according to which the negative consequences for the victim must be very significant and unbearable even with the most positive interpretation of the defamatory message [6]. In other words, the criterion of unbearability of the disseminated information for the victim plays a crucial role. German courts, when considering defamation cases, not only establish the correspondence of the expression to the truth and its relation to the claimant but also assess the degree of influence of this expression on public opinion. Additionally, the analysis of the evaluative nature of the judgment is important, since the expression of one's own opinion is not in principle prohibited [7].

Based on the above, it can be concluded that different countries have different approaches to the legal regulation of the institution of honor and dignity. Anglo-Saxon countries, within the framework of protecting honor and dignity, focus on civil law norms, while Romano-Germanic countries emphasize criminal law norms. The topic of protecting honor and dignity is becoming increasingly relevant, implying the need for its thorough investigation and identification of modern problems and ways to solve them. Overall, protecting honor and dignity in the digital age requires effective legal regulation that takes into account the specifics of different legal systems. It is necessary to improve the legal mechanisms for protecting honor and dignity to minimize the consequences of defamation and ensure the protection of citizens' rights in the modern digital society.

References:

  1. Manukyan V. I. «Suffering» in Anglo-Saxon law // Legal practice. 19.06.2007. № 25.
  2. Potapenko, S. V., Danielyan, A. S. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation: civil and procedural aspects: monograph / S. V. Potapenko, A. S. Danielyan; Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Kuban State University. — Krasnodar: Kuban State University. 2021. — 202 p.
  3. Defamation Act 2013 // legislation.gov.uk. URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf
  4. Baganova F. K. Development of legislation on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation on the example of Great Britain // Bulletin of Science. 2023. № 3 (60).
  5. Rudy N. K. Legal characteristics of honor, dignity and reputation // Jurist. — 2008. — № 3. — 156 p.
  6. Arkhiereev N. V. Protection of business reputation of legal entities in foreign legal systems // Business, management and law. 2014. № 2 (30). P. 138–144.
  7. Egorova M. A., Krylov V. G., Romanov A. K. Tort obligations and tort liability in English, German and French law / ed. M. A. Egorova. Moscow: Yustitsinform, 2017. 374 p.
Можно быстро и просто опубликовать свою научную статью в журнале «Молодой Ученый». Сразу предоставляем препринт и справку о публикации.
Опубликовать статью
Ключевые слова
jurisprudence
protection
honor
dignity
defamation
moral harm
Молодой учёный №21 (572) май 2025 г.
Скачать часть журнала с этой статьей(стр. 274-276):
Часть 4 (стр. 243-315)
Расположение в файле:
стр. 243стр. 274-276стр. 315

Молодой учёный