Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security discussed in this section to strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and reputational rights.83 The Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, calls for a variation of the actual malice standard in cases involving public officials, public persons or private persons who voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest: [I]n these cases, it must be proven that in disseminating the news, the social communicator had the specific intent to inflict harm, was fully aware that false news was disseminated, or acted with gross negligence in efforts to determine the truth or falsity of such news.84 The Human Rights Committee also notes that “a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence.”85 Where speech concerns matters of legitimate public interest, defamation liability is more likely to disproportionately burden freedom of expression because it will not only silence the speaker but also risk more broadly chilling discussion of and access to information about matters of public importance. Finally, new issues arise regarding defamation rules in the digital era. As with any type of content restrictions, general standards on freedom of expression also apply to defamation online.86 Special “cyber libel” laws, for example, are not appropriate because States should not create new content restrictions or standards merely because speech occurs online. Some special issues around defamation online do arise, however. For example: • A recommended better practice is the “single publication rule”, which counts the first publication of content online for purposes of the statute of limitations and only allows one action for damages.87 In the Internet era, a multiple publication rule can essentially subject media or other publishers to endless liability. Ibid. Adopted 19 October 2000, Principle 10, https://www.cidh.oas.org/declaration.htm. 85 General Comment No. 34, note 43, para. 47. See also UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Reinforcing media freedom and the safety of journalists in the digital age, 20 April 2022, para. 113, undocs.org/A/HRC/50/29; and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 6 September 2016, para 34, undocs.org/A/71/373 86 For a very introductory discussion, see CLD, Model Training Materials: Overview of Freedom of Expression under International Law, October 2022, https://www.law-democracy.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TrainingMaterials-1.FOE_.format-1.pdf. 87 Special international mandates on freedom of expression, 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, para. 4(c), https://bit.ly/3DJaNaB; and Agnes Callamard, Global Trends in Freedom of Expression Jurisprudence in 2014, 10-11 March 2015, https://bit.ly/3UfubDi. 83 84 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 20