If a judge is called ‘corrupt’ by a defendant outside court in front of the media, or if something more unambiguously libelous is said, can the judge sue the defendant?
If a judge is called ‘corrupt’ by a defendant outside court in front of the media, or if something more unambiguously libelous is said, can the judge sue the defendant?
“Corrupt” would almost certainly be a statement of opinion, so not actionable in the US. A lot more detail would be necessary for this to be defamation.
“Judge XXXX has taken millions in shadow bribes and has consistently ruled for the wishes of his/her benefactors. There has been a history of being reversed on appeal proving their bias. Also I watched them kick a puppy.”
Then, obviously, these things would have to be false. Even then, the bar is pretty high. There are exceptions both ways on this, but as a general guideline, if the public knows a person’s name (judge in a high profile case, for example) they are probably classified as a public figure. The rule there is one of “actual malice” which isn’t exactly what it sounds like, but it’s the highest bar for defamation cases.
The speaker would have to say something factually false, knowingly or with no regard for the truth. Giuliani, for one recent example, was found guilty of defaming the Georgia election workers, because he went into great detail about his false claims, and he was told repeatedly that thise claims were false, but he kept going.
How the fuck is “corrupt” a matter of opinion? Maybe it’s different in English which is not my first language but corrupt has a very straightforward meaning, it means you took money or favors to affect your professional conduct.
In American English, “corrupt” can refer to both the crime of corruption (eg quid pro quo deals with public officials) as well as seemingly abuses of discretion. For example, a city engineer has some amount of discretion when designing a new street, whether to dedicate more public space to automobiles or to restrict the space to become more like a public plaza, ie a living street with places to sit, eat, shop, and take in the air.
By objective professional standards, either approach could be appropriate if properly justified. But public sentiment could result in that engineer being called “corrupt” because they’re giving less favor toward automobiles, for example. That is, “corrupt” is an epithet to voice one’s displeasure at a discretionary decision. Also see sports umpires, who face similar (or worse) vitriol.