Bet you didnt know that the mattress king sleeps here. Living on Hilton Head Island, Gary Fazio brings nearly 40 years of bedding industry know-how to the Lowcountry. Known among industry leaders as one of the most influential people in the bedding business, Fazio has spent his life learning how you can rest more peacefully.
Fazio is currently CEO of Simmons, based in Atlanta, after major stints at Sealy and Mattress Firm. Lucky for you, his son Adam Fazio owns the local Mattress Firm store in Bluffton and can pass on their collective knowledge to you as a benefit of living in the same town as the royal family of mattresses.
Adam instinctively knows he must pass on his wealth of knowledge to grow his empire. His employees are degreed professionals who work at Mattress Firm as a career, not just a job, he said. This level of expertise makes mattress buying an educational experience for the customers, not just an item to cross off their to-do list.
All of our managers go to Houston, Texas, where Mattress Firm and its Sleep School are headquartered. Under the guidance of Dr. Michael Breus, known as The Sleep Doctor, each employee learns what makes a mattress and what makes sleep restorative, Adam said. Even our delivery guys have degrees and mattress training. I am serious about this business, and everyone who represents my stores must be informed about the latest business trends and information.
Mattress Firm employees are sleep therapists: you tell them intimate details of your life in order to improve the quality of your sleep and life.
Sleep is the foundation of life. Without proper rest, we dont have the energy to live life at our best levels, Adam explained. When customers come into the store, we dont ask them what mattress they want to see. We ask them what their sleeping patterns are, if they have any physical issues, and how their sleep behaviors help or hinder the sleep of their partner, and then we show them the mattress which may best fit their needs.
Adam didnt start his career following the pillow imprints of his father. He owned a computer business and specialized in Web application and development for government agencies. He sold the company to a Washington, D.C.-based federal contractor and then moved to the Lowcountry to open his first Mattress Firm store. Just like the computer biz, Adam knows that technology and attention to details create industry leaders. He found the best location in Bluffton, as the store firmly faces Highway 278. Neil, a life-size astronaut is usually in front of the store. The caricature symbolizes the discovery of the Tempur-Pedic mattress while NASA was experimenting with materials to better cushion and support astronauts during lift-off.
While Gary continues to manage the industry on an international level, Adam is growing the family dynasty on a local level. Adam plans to expand his Hilton Head Island- Savannah franchise within the next six to nine months. The first expansion is to open a Super Center in front of Oglethorpe Mall in Savannah. The next opening is scheduled in Pooler, Georgia, on Pooler Parkway near the Savannah airport. Proud that Mattress Firm is the only specialized sleep store with sleep shops in all four time zones, Adam plans to own stores from south of Charleston to north of Jacksonville, Florida. And when you meet him, you may get the impression he lives, eats andwell, sleeps this mission.
Once I found the Bluffton location during Thanksgiving of 2007, I gutted the building and rebuilt it in four weeks, Adam said. I opened for business in 2008 when the economy was in recession and the bedding industry numbers had sunk to 2002 levels. However, I have a low-price guarantee, hired professional people, offer more than 500 models, display more than 60 of them and now our momentum is revving up by opening more stores in Georgia and South Carolina.
Adam attributes his success to customer service such as next-day service, shipping mattresses to peoples homes in other states, offering better warranties and knowing how a mattress can better a persons life. You cant sell a multi-thousand dollar Tempur-Pedic bed by putting a sign on it, he said. You have to know the science behind restful sleep. He wants the consumers needs, not whats in stock or what may be a quick sale, to dictate the bed. You keep the customers needs first and everyone wins, Adam said.
According to Adam, the forthcoming Savannah Super Center will have more mattresses on display than any other Mattress Firm store in the country. It will also feature a Tempur-Pedic Sleep Experience Center, a state-of-the-art, computerized sleep simulator that customers can experience as part of discovering what mattress best fits their needs.
Tempur-Pedic, known as the highest echelon of mattresses, has selected Adams new store to be one of the first in the United States to offer this sleep simulator. The Bluffton Mattress Firm store already has a proven track record since it is the only retailer in South Carolina to display all of Tempur-Pedic models.
Being the son of the mattress king, Adam has grown up listening to his fathers management philosophies. One of his dads strongest tenets is never to be satisfied and always to strive for the next goal. His dad said many times that success is not an accident.
In addition to his family taking note, Garys leadership has been recognized by national groups. In July 2011, the Anti-Defamation League honored Gary as one of the home furnishings executives who have created a corporate culture which benefited the lives of others and advanced the goals central to the mission of the Anti-Defamation League. (The civil rights and human relations agency, which fights all forms of bigotry, also honored renowned model and furniture designer Kathy Ireland.)
The last four years of being in the business has taught me a greater appreciation of what my dad created. I am proud of his vision and that he saw a gap between manufacturing and retail and has filled that gap to create a better experience for the customer, Adam said.
While his employees arent related by bloodline, Adam said they are a part of his plan and bond with him through shared experiences and goals. He calls his Bluffton store manager, Charles Taylor, son. Two other employees, Kimberly Morris and Rachelle Hobus are roommates. And Adams colleague from his computer days, Rob Moul, will assist in expanding the Mattress Firm franchise to other states.
Adam learned much from his dad and continues to pass it on. We are family here, he said.
For more information on your next mattress, call 843-837-FIRM!
Go here to see the original:
Hilton Head Magazines: CH2/CB2: The Mattress King Sleeps …
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states
In Azerbaijan, the crime of defamation (Article 147) may result in a fine up to “500 times the amount of minimum salaries”, public work for up to 240 hours, correctional work for up to one year, or imprisonment of up to six months. Penalties are aggravated to up to three years of prison if the victim is falsely accused of having committed a crime “of grave or very grave nature” (Article 147.2). The crime of insult (Article 148) can lead to a fine of up to 1000 times the minimum wage, or to the same penalties of defamation for public work, correctional work or imprisonment. 
According to the OSCE report on defamation laws, “Azerbaijan intends to remove articles on defamation and insult from criminal legislation and preserve them in the Civil Code”.
Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China () criminalizes defamation.
Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China () criminalizes defamation, held constitutional on 7 July 2000 by the Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan ().
According to the Constitution of India, the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to “reasonable restrictions”. Accordingly, for the purpose of criminal defamation, “reasonable restrictions” are defined in Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section defines Defamation and provides valid exceptions when a statement is not considered to be Defamation. It says that Defamation takes place “by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, to make or publish any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation, of such person.” In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law or Cyber Crime Law, together or in sequence.
The punishment for Defamation is a simple imprisonment for up to two years or with fine or with both.
In Korea true and false statements are punishable criminally and civilly with defamation; any words harming another can be considered illegal and may be punishable with fines and imprisonment up to seven years. Defamation is covered by several laws in Korea, civil law, traditional criminal law and modern internet criminal law-under the “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc.” (Internet and email related laws) 2005 CHAPTER IX Article 61 (Penal Provisions). Korean defamation varies significantly from Western laws and in general by country and by case. As image and “public face” are very important in East Asia, it is not difficult to sue for “loss of face” (defamation) in Korea. Even middle school students are active with cases.
As of June 2010, Korean courts were still hearing cases and individuals frequently fined a few thousand dollars for true facts. International “comity” procedure or “intent” appear not key in Korea.
In the former Soviet Union, defamatory insults “could only constitute a criminal offense, not a civil wrong”.
Defamation Act, 1859
Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines addresses Crimes Against Honor. Chapter one of that title addresses libel and slander. Libel is defined as “public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.” Slander is defined as oral defamation. Slander by deed is defined as “any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.” Penalties of fine or imprisonment are specified for these crimes and for the threat of libel. A notable characteristic of these crimes under Philippine law is the specification that they apply to imputations both real and imaginary.
In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titled The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Essentially, this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as: “Libel the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law, electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from 6 years and one day to up to 12 years. As of 30 September 2012[update], five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.
“A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.
A person who makes a communication the untruth of which is unknown to him, does not thereby render himself liable to make compensation, if he or the receiver of the communication has a rightful interest in it.
The Court, when given judgment as to the liability for wrongful act and the amount of compensation, shall not be bound by the provisions of the criminal law concerning liability to punishment or by the conviction or non-conviction of the wrongdoer for a criminal offence.”
“Section 326. Defamation
Whoever, imputes anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both. Section 327. Defamation to the Family
Whoever, imputing anything the deceased person before the third person, and that imputation to be likely to impair the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of the deceased or to expose that person hated or scammed to be said to commit defamation, and shall be punished as prescribed by Section 326.” 
According to the Criminal Code of Albania, defamation is a crime. Insulting (Article 119) can lead to a fine or up to six months of imprisonment (if in public, up to a year), while libel (Article 120) may result in a fine or up to a year of prison (up to 2 years when in public). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from 1 to 3 years of imprisonment.
In Austria, the crime of defamation is foreseen by Article 111 of the Criminal Code. Related criminal offenses include “slander and assault” (Article 115), that happens “if a person insults, mocks, mistreats or threatens will ill-treatment another one in public”, and yet “malicious falsehood” (Article 297), defined as a false accusation that exposes someone to the risk of prosecution.
In Belgium, crimes against honour are foreseen in Chapter V of the Belgian Penal Code, Articles 443 to 453-bis. Someone is guilty of calumny when law admits proof of the alleged fact and of defamation “when law does not admit this evidence” (Article 443). The penalty is 8 days to one year of imprisonment, plus a fine (Article 444). In addition, the crime of “calumnious denunciation” (Article 445) is punished with 15 days to six months in prison, plus a fine. In any of the crimes covered by Chapter V of the Penal Code, the minimum penalty may be doubled (Article 453-bis) when one of the motivations of the crime is hatred, contempt or hostility of a person due to his or her intended race, color of the skin, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, age, patrimony, philosophical or religious belief, present or future health condition, disability, native language, political beliefs, physical or genetical characteristic, or social origin.”
In Bulgaria, defamation is formally a criminal offense, but the penalty of imprisonment has been abolished in 1999. Articles 146 (insult), 147 (criminal defamation) and 148 (public insult) of the Criminal Code prescribe a penalty of fine.
In Croatia, the crime of insult prescribes a penalty of up to three months in prison, or a fine of “up to 100 daily incomes” (Criminal Code, Article 199). If the crime is committed in public, penalties are aggravated to up to six months of imprisonment, or a fine of “up to 150 daily incomes” (Article 199-2). Moreover, the crime of defamation occurs when someone affirms or disseminates false facts about other person that can damage his reputation. The maximum penalty is one year in prison, or a fine of up to 150 daily incomes (Article 200-1). If the crime is committed in public, the prison term can reach one year (Article 200-2). On the other hand, according to Article 203, there is an exemption for the application of the aforementioned articles (insult and defamation) when the specific context is that of a scientific work, literary work, work of art, public information conducted by a politician or a government official, journalistic work, or the defense of a right or the protection of justifiable interests, in all cases provided that the conduct was not aimed at damaging someone’s reputation.
According to the Czech Criminal Code, Article 184, defamation is a crime. Penalties may reach a maximum prison term of one year (Article 184-1) or, if the crime is committed through the press, film, radio, TV, publicly accessible computer network, or by “similarly effective” methods, the offender may stay in prison for up to two years or be prohibited of exercising a specific activity. However, only the most severe cases will be subjets to criminal liability. The less severe cases can be solved by an action for apology, damages or injunctions.
In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. In addition, Article 266-b prescribes a maximum prison term of two years in the case of public defamation aimed at a group of persons because of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or “sexual inclination”.
In Finland, defamation is a crime, according to the Criminal Code (Chapter 24, Section 9), with a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months or a fine. When the defamation occurs in public, the crime is “aggravated defamation” (Chapter 24, Section 10), with a maximum punishment of two years in prison or a fine. In addition, there’s also a crime called “dissemination of information violating personal privacy” (Chapter 24, Section 8), that deals with the public dissemination of information that can harm one’s private life. However, personalities involved in the fields of politics, business, public office or public position, “or in a comparable position”, are specifically not protected by this article.
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing. The relevant offences of Germany’s Criminal Code are 90 (Denigration of the President of State), 90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), 90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), 185 (“insult”), 186 (Defamation of character), 187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), 188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), 189 (Denigration of a deceased person), 192 (“insult” with true statements). Other sections relevant to prosecution of these offences are 190 (Criminal conviction as proof of truth), 193 (No defamation in the pursuit of rightful interests), 194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), 199 (Mutual insult allowed to be left unpunished), and 200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized[by whom?] for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.
In Greece, the maximum prison term for defamation, libel or insult is five years, while the maximum fine is 15,000.
The crime of insult (Article 361, 1, of the Penal Code) may lead to up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine, while unprovoked insult (Article 361-A, 1) is punished with at least three months in prison. In addition, defamation may result in up to two months in prison and/or a fine, while aggravated defamation can lead to at least 3 months of prison, plus a possible fine (Article 363) and deprivation of the offender’s civil rights. Finally, disparaging the memory of a deceased person is punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months (Penal Code, Article 365). 
Individuals are protected under the Defamation Act 2009 which came into force on the first of January 2010. This 2009 Act repeals the Defamation Act 1961, which had, together with the underlying principles of the common law of tort, governed Irish defamation law for almost half a century. The 2009 Act represents significant changes in Irish law, as many believe that it previously attached insufficient importance to the media’s freedom of expression and weighed too heavily in favour of the individual’s right to a good name. The Act has a one-year limitation period which can be extended to two years in exceptional circumstances.
In Italy, there are different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) refers to offending one’s honor and is punished with up to six months in prison or up to 516 Euros in fine. If the offense refers to the attribution of a determined fact and is committed before many persons, penalties are doubled to up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine. In addition, the crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one’s reputation before many persons, and has a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2065 Euros if the offense consists of the attribution of a determined fact. When the offense happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least 516 Euros.
Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.
In the Netherlands, defamation is mostly dealt with by lodging a civil complaint at the District Court. Article 167 of book 6 of the Civil Code holds: “When someone is liable towards another person under this Section because of an incorrect or, by its incompleteness, misleading publication of information of factual nature, the court may, upon a right of action (legal claim) of this other person, order the tortfeasor to publish a correction in a way to be set by court.” If the court grants an injunction, the defendant is usually ordered to delete the publication or to publish a rectification statement.
In Norway, defamation is a crime punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine (Penal Code, Chapter 23, 246). When the offense is likely to harm one’s “good name” and reputation, or exposes him to hatred, contempt or loss of confidence, the maximum prison term goes up to one year, and if the defamation happens in print, in broadcasting or through an especially aggravating circumstance, imprisonment may reach two years ( 247). When the offender acts “against his better judgment”, he is liable to a maximum prison term of three years ( 248). According to 251, defamation lawsuits must be initiated by the offended person, unless the defamatory act was directed to an indefinite group or a large number of persons, when it may also be prosecuted by public authorities.
Under the new Penal Code, decided upon by the Parliament in 2005, defamation will cease to exist as a crime. Rather, any person who believes he or she has been subject to defamation will have to press civil lawsuits. The Penal Code has not taken effect as of 2010, and there are no set date for this.
In Poland, defamation is a crime that consists of accusing someone of a conduct that may degrade him in public opinion or expose him “to the loss of confidence necessary for a given position, occupation or type of activity”. Penalties include fine, limitation of liberty and imprisonment for up to a year (Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code). The penalty is more severe when the offense happens through the media (Article 212.2). When the insult is public and aims at offending a group of people or an individual because of his or their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or lack of religion, the maximum prison term is 3 years.
In Portugal, defamation crimes are: “defamation” (article 180 of the Penal Code; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), “injuries” (art. 181; up to 3 months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and “offense to the memory of a deceased person” (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of “public knowledge of the court decision” (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of “incitation of a crime” (article 297; up to 3 years in prison, or fine).
In Spain, the crime of calumny (Article 205 of the Penal Code) consists of offending one’s reputation knowing the falsity of the offense, or with a reckless contempt for truth. Penalties for cases with publicity are imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months-fine, and for other cases only a fine of 6 to 12 months-fine (Article 206). Additionally, the crime of injury (Article 208 of the Penal Code) consists of hurting someone’s dignity, depreciating his reputation or injuring his self-esteem, and is only applicable if the offense, by its nature, effects and circumstances, is considered by the general public as strong. Injury has a penalty of fine from 3 to 7 months-fine, or from 6 to 14 months-fine when it’s strong and with publicity. According to Article 216, an additional penalty to calumny or injury may be imposed by the judge, determining the publication of the judicial decision (in a newspaper) at the expenses of the defamer.
In Sweden, the criminal offense of denigration (rekrnkning) is regulated in Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Article 1 regulates defamation (frtal) and consists of pointing out someone as a criminal or as “having a reprehensible way of living”, or of providing information about him “intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others”. The penalty is a fine. It is generally not a requirement that the statements are untrue, it is enough if they statements are meant to be vilifying.
Article 2 regulates gross defamation (grovt frtal) and has a penalty of up to 2 years in prison or a fine. In judging if the crime is gross, the court should consider whether the information, because of its content or the scope of its dissemination, is calculated to produce “serious damage”. For example, if it can be established that the defendant knowingly conveyed untruths. Article 4 makes it a crime to defame a deceased person according to Article 1 or 2. Most obviously, the paragraph is meant to make it illegal to defame someones parents as a way to bypass the law.
Article 3 regulates other insulting behavior (frolmpning), not characterized under Article 1 or 2 and is punishable with a fine or, if it’s gross, with up to six months of prison or a fine. While an act of defamation involves a third person, it is not a requirement for insulting behavior.
Under exemptions in the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, both criminal and civil lawsuits may be brought to court under the laws on denigration.
In Switzerland, the crime of “calumny” is punished with a maximum term of three years in prison, or with a fine of at least 30 days-fine, according to Article 174-2 of the Swiss Criminal Code. There is calumny when the offender knows the falsity of his/her allegations and intentionally looks to ruin the reputation of one’s victim (see Articles 174-1 and 174-2).
On the other hand, “difamation” is punished only with a maximum fine of 180 days-fine (Article 173-1). When it comes to a deceased or absent person, there is a limitation to enforce the law up to 30 years (after the death).
Constitutionally under 18 and individuals without prior knowledge to laws or actions leading to deformation of a group or individual are protected until they are made aware. (Reference needed)
With the rise of the internet, and also intranets (closed computer networks), defamatory and calumnus statements may be communicated on webpages or internal memos, without reaching the attention of the courts. Such “closet defamy” may be used to conceal other criminal or negligent acts.
Modern libel and slander laws (as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations) in the United Kingdom, and in the Republic of Ireland are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (12721307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. Allowable defences are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), absolute privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest) and qualified privilege (where it is thought that the freedom of expression outweighs the protection of reputation, but not to the degree of granting absolute immunity). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
Criminal libel was abolished on 12 January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There were only a few instances of the criminal libel law being applied. Notably, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.
In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions that base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is “veritas”.
In Argentina, the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter “Crimes Against Honor” (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit” (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive don’t constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos. He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110).
He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for the calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about a person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to 3 years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, 2nd and 3rd).
In Brazil, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as “defamation” (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), “calumny” (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) and/or “injury” (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practiced in public (Article 141, item III) or against a state employee because of his regular duties. Incitation to hatred and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). Moreover, in situations like bullying or moral constraint, defamation acts are also covered by the crimes of “illegal constraint” (Article 146 of the Penal Code) and “arbitrary exercise of discretion” (Article 345 of PC), defined as breaking the law as a vigilante.
In Chile, the crimes of calumny and slanderous allegation (injurias) are covered by Articles 412 to 431 of the Penal Code. Calumny is defined as “the false imputation of a determined crime and that can lead to a public prosecution” (Article 412). If the calumny is written and with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its medium degree plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages” when it refers to a crime, or “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it refers to a misdemeanor (Article 413). If it’s not written or with publicity, penalty is “lower imprisonment” in its minimum degree plus a fine of 6 to 15 “vital wages” when it’s about a crime, or plus a fine of 6 to 10 “vital wages” when it’s about a misdemeanor (Article 414).
According to Article 25 of the Penal Code, “lower imprisonment” is defined as a prison term between 61 days and five years. According to Article 30, the penalty of “lower imprisonment” in its medium or minimum degrees carries with it also the suspension of the exercise of a public position during the prison term.
Article 416 defines injuria as “all expression said or action performed that dishonors, discredits or causes contempt”. Article 417 defines broadly “injurias graves” (grave slander), including the imputation of a crime or misdemeanor that cannot lead to public prosecution, and the imputation of a vice or lack of morality, which are capable of harming considerably the reputation, credit or interests of the offended person. “Grave slander” in written form or with publicity are punished with “lower imprisonment” in its minimum to medium degrees plus a fine of 11 to 20 “vital wages”. Calumny or slander of a deceased person (Article 424) can be prosecuted by the spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings and heirs of the offended person. Finally, according to Article 425, in the case of calumnies and slander published in foreign newspapers, are considered liable all those who from Chilean territory sent articles or gave orders for publication abroad, or contributed to the introduction of such newspapers in Chile with the intention of propagating the calumny and slander.
As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). In common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. 
In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury (fault), a wrongful act (damage), and of a causal connection (link of causality) between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.
Regarding defamation on the internet, in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who posts hyperlinks on a website which lead to another site with defamatory content is not publishing that defamatory material for the purposes of libel and defamation law.
In Canada, the so-called “blasphemous libel” is a crime punished with a maximum term of two years in prison, according to Article 296-1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, as well as the crime of “defamatory libel” (Article 298), which receives the same penalty (see Article 301). In the specific case of a “libel known to be false” (Article 300), the prison term increases to a maximum of five years. According to Article 298, a defamatory libel “is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published”.
The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied. In the most recent case, in 1994 Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.
According to an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe official report on defamation laws issued in 2005, 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was 1460 days of imprisonment.
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malicethat is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher’s “knowledge that the information was false” or that the information was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one’s physical state of being.[clarification needed] Recent[when?] cases[which?] have addressed defamation law and the Internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being “fair comment and criticism”. Truth is always a defense.
However, American writers and publishers are protected[clarification needed] from foreign libel judgments not compliant with the US First Amendment, or libel tourism, by the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as “Rachels Law,” after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws). Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously.
Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.
The record libel verdict in the United States was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favor of MMAR Group Inc., awarding $222.7 million. However, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.
The record verdict rendered in favour of an individual was the award of $35.5 million against the Russian newspaper Izvestia in favor of entrepreneur Alex Konanykhin, who also won a $3 million judgment against Kommersant, another Russian newspaper.
The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. In May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality, ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation.
At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 19 states and 2 territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books: Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-13-105 – repealed in 2012), Florida (Florida Statutes, 836.01836.11), Georgia, (O.C.G.A. 16-11-40), Idaho (Idaho Code, 18-4801-18-4809), Kansas (Kansas Statute Annotated, 21-4004), Louisiana (Louisiana R.S., 14:47), Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws, 750.370), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes. 609.765), Montana (Montana Code Annotated, 13-35-234), Nevada (Nevada Revised Statutes 200.510200.560), New Hampshire (New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated, 644:11), New Mexico (New Mexico Statute Annotated, 30-11-1), North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes, 1447), North Dakota (North Dakota Century Code, 12.1-15-01), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 771781), Utah (Utah Code Annotated, 76-9-404), Virginia (Virginia Code Annotated, 18.2-417), Washington (Washington Revised Code, 9.58.010) (This appears to have been repealed: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/dispo.aspx?cite=9.58.010 ), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes, 942.01), Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, 41014104) and Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, 1172).
Crimes of calumny, defamation and slanderous allegation (injurias) have been abolished in the Federal Penal Code as well as in 15 states. These crimes remain in the penal codes of 17 states, where penalty is, in average, from 1.1 years (for ones convicted for slanderous allegation) to 3.8 years in jail (for those convicted for calumny).
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997). It is interesting to note that in Common Law, not all statements that are injurious to a person are necessarily defamatory. The statement must be about that particular person for it to be categorised as defamatory. 
Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.
A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates Gutnick v Dow Jones is Berezovsky v Forbes in England.
Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision. On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.
Uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, e.g., Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company. Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than for mere defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.
The 2005 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defense; previously a number of states only allowed a defense of truth with the condition that a public benefit existed.
The Hebrew term lashon hara is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about another person.Lashon hara differs from defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, rather than falsehood and harm arising. By contrast, hotzaat shem ra (“spreading a bad name”), also called hotzaat diba, consists of untrue remarks, and is best translated as “slander” or “defamation”. Hotzaat shem ra is worse, and consequently a graver sin, than lashon hara.
In Roman Catholic theology there are seen to be two sins, that of lying and that of impinging on a person’s right to a reputation. It is considered to be closed to detraction, the sin of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person.
Read the rest here:
Defamation – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leo Frank taken from the Tower to the Coroner’s Inquest, Atlanta, Georgian, Monday, May 5, 1913, on the left is Chief of Detectives Lanford and on the right (image cut out) is Chief BeaversThe procedural machinations of the official Mary Phagan murder investigation wasted no time in efforts regarding uncovering the material circumstances of the crime.
The Coroner’s Inquest
Presided over by the Fulton County Coroner Paul V. Donehoo were a half-petite jury of prominent men from the community, who opened the coroner’s inquest investigation on Wednesday morning, April 30, 1913.
The coroner’s inquest began shortly after nine o’clock after the jury was sworn under oath. The empaneled tribunal in total consisted of seven men (1 + 6), the coroner and six inquest jurymen: (1.) H. Ashford, foreman, (2.) Glenn Dewberry, (3.) J. Hood, (4.) C. Langford, (5.) John Miller, (6.) C. Sheats, (7.) Judge of the Inquest Jury, The Fulton County Coroner, Paul Donehoo.
Within the two cross-examination sessions of Leo Frank, he was very specific that he did not use the second floor bathroom ALL DAY
when he testified under oath at the coroner’s inquest — not that he didn’t remember — but that he DID NOT USE the bathroom on April 26, 1913. He appeared to be distancing himself (verbally and mentally) from the bathroom area of the second floor, which was located in the metal room. There were no other bathrooms on the second floor of the National Pencil Company, except in the metal room (Defendent’s Exhibit 61). This was thought of as a throw-away detail until it became a link in the case.
Caught in a Lie: The Perjury of Lemmie A. Quinn
A controversial new development occurred concerning Leo M. Frank’s murder timeline alibi about him never leaving his office on April 26, 1913, between noon and 12:45 p.m. Leo Frank said he had forgotten for the first week of the murder investigation to bring forward Lemmie A. Quinn, foreman of the metal room, a key witness at the coroner’s inquest and later at the Frank trial. He was criminally impeached during the appeals after the revelation that he was offering bribes to witnesses to change their stories. At the coroner’s inquest, Lemmie Quinn came forward to provide testimony that sounded contrived and did not pass the common sense test.
Quinn told the coroner’s inquest jury, he had went back to the pencil factory and specifically into Leo M. Frank’s office at 12:20 to 12:25 to talk about a baseball bet with Mr. Herbert George Schiff, but Schiff was not supposed to be at the factory at all that day because it was a state holiday and everyone was given the day off.
Herbert G. Schiff later prided himself at the Leo Frank trial for never missing a day of work in five years (BOE, Herbert Schiff, 1913) except once unintentionally during a disastrous flood. Leo Frank gave the false impression that Schiff missed work that day to support the Quinn appearance.
Several employees close to Leo Frank would later provide a cacophony of contradictory information about Schiff.The young Herbert G. Schiff became the superintendent at the NPCo after Leo Frank.If Lemmie Quinn was at the NPCo factory on Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, at 12:20 p.m., asking Leo Frank, “Where is Herbert G. Schiff?” and intimating he had not come to work yet, the average person in 1913 was sarcastically asking why Herbert Schiff was NOT at work on a state holiday in the shuttered factory?
The coroner’s inquest jury saw right through it, and ostensibly the falsified testimony of Quinn was meant to shrink the plausible time Leo M. Frank would have to bludgeon, rape, and strangle Mary Phagan by fifteen minutes from formerly 12:02 p.m. to 12:35 p.m., to 12:02 p.m. to 12:19 p.m. However, the importance of Lemmie A. Quinn’s manufactured testimony was it added eyewitness testimony strength to Leo Frank’s alibi that he never left his office from at least noon to 12:35 p.m.
Lemmie Quinn’s perjury shrunk Leo M. Frank’s unaccounted time on that fateful Saturday, but it still left the time frame Mary Phagan arrived at Frank’s office wide open and unaccounted for.
Three Separate and Distinct Mary Phagan Arrival Times Would Later Become Four
According to Leo Frank:
1. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at 12:03 p.m. on April 26, 1913–this information was given to detectives on Sunday, April 27, 1913, in Leo Frank’s office.
2. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at “12:05 pm and 12:10 p.m., maybe 12:07 p.m.” according to Leo Frank in State’s Exhibit B, given to the police on Monday, April 28, 1913.
3. Mary Phagan arrived in his second-floor business office at 12:10 p.m. on April 26, 1913–Frank gave this information at the coroner’s inquest.
At the time of the coroner’s inquest, Leo Frank had provided three different times that Mary Phagan had arrived in his office.
Conclusion of the Coroner’s Inquest and Jury
Coroner Paul Donehoo and his inquest jury of six men empaneled, questioned over one hundred factory employees and dozens of other various associated people.
The coroner’s inquest combed through the factory to examine the layout and permutations of the murder.
The weeklong inquest and testimony provided under oath left strong suspicion directed upon Leo M. Frank when Thursday, May 8, 1913, the Mary Phagan Inquest drew to a close.
At 6:30 p.m., the jury went into executive session to hear the testimony of Dr. J. W. Hurt, county physician, on the what had happened to Mary Phagan shortly before her death and what was the likely cause. The doctor addressed the jury for twenty minutes.
Donehoo convened to hear the jury findings:
“We, the coroner’s jury, empaneled and sworn by Paul Donehoo, coroner of Fulton County, to inquire into the death of Mary Phagan, whose dead body now lies before us, after having heard the evidence of sworn witnesses, and the statement of Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, find that the deceased came to her death from strangulation. We recommend that Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee be
held under charges of murder for further investigation by the Fulton County grand jury.
Homer C. Ashford, Foreman
Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician”
Coroner and Inquest Jury Verdict: The Coroner Approved the Unanimous Finding of the Inquest Jury
The coroner and his inquest jury of six men together voted unanimously 7 to 0 recommending Leo M. Frank be bound over for murder and investigated further by a grand jury of twenty-three men, which ironically included four Jews.
Coroner Paul Donehoo ordered that Leo Frank be bound over for murder and Newt Lee was to be held as a material witness.
Still yet to be uncovered was who wrote the murder notes that appeared to be written by a Negro in Ebonics.
Police Delivered the News to Leo Frank and Newt Lee
Deputy Plennie Minor delivered the unanimous verdict of the coroner’s inquest jury to Leo M. Frank, who was being held in the infamous Atlanta Police Tower. Frank was sitting perusing a local daily newspaper, Atlanta Constitution, May 8, 1913, at the time at the time of the message. When Deputy Plennie Minor approached Leo M. Frank and told him about the unanimous verdict of the inquest jury, which had ordered that Frank be held for murder and for a more thorough investigation by the grand jury.
Newt Lee slumped his head dejectedly when the bad news was delivered to him. However, Leo Frank insolently replied that it was no more than he had expected and continued crackling away and folding the big sheets of his newspaper.
In total, more than two hundred witnesses, factory workers, and affiliates had been subpoenaed providing sworn testimony at the Inquest.
What stood out the most from all the inquest testimony was that Leo Frank specified he never went to the bathroom that day, and he held onto that position for 3.5 months until he made a startling revelation during his trial on August 18, 1913.Left Detective John R. Black, on the Right Pinkerton Detective Harry K. Scott, Center Bottom Newton “Newt” Lee
One can’t help but wonder if the grand jury transcript was also purged in an effort to expunge some interesting testimony that led to the unanimous indictment of Leo Frank by twenty-one jurors, including four Jews.
The ace up Dorsey’s sleeve for the grand jury investigation, Monteen Stover.
NEXT: Leo Frank Grand Jury Indictment on Saturday, May 24, 1913.
Atlanta Georgian Newspaper Coverage of the Mary Phagan Murder Investigation, Coroner’s Inquest Testimony of Leo Frank, May, 5, 8, 1913: http://leofrank.org/library/atlanta-georgian/.
The Frank Case (1913). The Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery. Atlanta Publishing Company, Atlanta, GA. The first book ever published on the Leo Frank case. http://leofrank.org/library/frank-case.pdf.
May 1, 1913, Mary Phagan and Leo Frank Coroner’s Inquest, Atlanta Constitution: http://www.leofrank.org/library/atlanta-journal-constitution/frank-tried-to-flirt-with-murdered-girl-says-her-boy-chum-may-1-1913.pdf.
May 9, 1913, Atlanta Constitution.
Atlanta Constitution, The Second Coroner’s Inquest Session,