Defamation remains a criminal offence in Iceland.

The Icelandic Criminal Code provides the following offences:

Insult (Art. 234): Provides criminal liability for “Anyone who defames another person by insults in word or deed and anyone who disseminates such defamation”. The penalty is a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

Defamation (Art. 235): Defined as “[m]aking insinuations about another person of a nature that would damage his or her reputation, or spreading such insinuations”. The penalty is a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

Slander (Art. 236): Defined as “[m]aking or disseminating a defamatory insinuation against one’s better knowledge”. The penalty is imprisonment for up to two years. “If an insinuation is made or disseminated publicly even though the person making it had no reason to believe it to be correct”, the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Upbraiding (Art. 237): Defined as “upbraid[ing] another person with something without any occasion to do so … even if he or she is telling the truth”. The penalty is a fine.

Insult of close family members (Art. 233b): Provides criminal liability for “[a]nyone who insults or denigrates his or her spouse or ex-spouse, child or other closely-related person, the offence being considered as constituting serious defamation”. The penalty is imprisonment for up to two years.

It should also be noted that Art. 233a provides criminal liability for mocking, defaming, denigrating or threatening “a person or group of persons by comments or expressions of another nature, for example by means of pictures or symbols, for their nationality, colour, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, or disseminates such materials”. The penalty is a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Criminal Code Art. 241 provides: “Offensive remarks may be judged null and void in an action for libel if the injured party so requests.” The offender may also be required to pay for the publishing of the court’s judgment or a correction.

The Icelandic Criminal Code does not provide explicit defences (grounds for exemption from criminal liability) for the offences mentioned above.

It is worth noting that Iceland’s Media Law contains a clause stating that the press is forbidden from “encourag[ing] hatred” on the grounds of “race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, nationality, opinion or cultural, economic, social or other standing in society” (Art. 27). Compliance with this and all other directives in the Law falls within the purview of the newly established Media Commission, which monitors and licenses all media operating in Iceland. For infractions of Art. 27, the Commission can issue an “executive fine” of up to 10 million Icelandic krónur (Art. 54). Violations can also incur criminal liability resulting in imprisonment for up to six months; police investigations may only begin at the request of the Media Commission (Arts. 55-56). Notably, the Media Commission is a state body. Its five members are appointed by Iceland’s Minister of Education, Culture, and Science, according to the following formula: “Two representatives shall be appointed in accordance with a nomination by the Supreme Court of Iceland, one in accordance with a nomination by the standing Committee of the Rectors of Icelandic Higher Education Institutions and one in accordance with a nomination by the National Union of Icelandic Journalists; the fifth shall be appointed by the minister without nomination” (Art. 8).

No provisions.

Under Art. 101(1) of the Icelandic Criminal Code, if criminal defamation or insult is committed against the President of Iceland, or a person exercising presidential powers, the usual punishment shall be increased, but not more than doubled. Defamation or insult committed against the President’s “closest relatives in such a way as may be considered to be directed against his or her home” incurs an increased punishment of up to one-half (Art. 101(2)).

Defaming the Icelandic flag “in word or deed” is a criminal offence under the Act on the National Flag and Coat of Arms. The penalty is a fine or up to one year in prison.

Defamation of foreign head of state and foreign diplomats: Under Art. 94 of the Icelandic Criminal Code, the punishment for criminal defamation or insult may be increased by one-half if directed at the head of a foreign state or foreign ambassadors stationed in Iceland.

Additionally, Art. 95 of the Criminal Code provides criminal liability for “publicly insult[ing] a foreign nation or foreign state, its supreme official, its head of state, its flag or other recognized national symbol, or the flag of the United Nations or the flag of the European Union”. The penalty is imprisonment for up to two years. For “serious offences”, however, the penalty is imprisonment for up to six years.

In addition, Art. 95(2) provides: “The same punishment shall be applied to any person who publicly insults or otherwise utters abusive words or other insults, in word or deed, or makes defamatory insinuations regarding other employees of a foreign state who are present in Iceland.”

Art. 95 of the Criminal Code provides criminal liability for “publicly insult[ing] a foreign nation or foreign state, its supreme official, its head of state, its flag or other recognized national symbol, or the flag of the United Nations or the flag of the European Union”. The penalty is imprisonment for up to two years. For “serious offences”, however, the penalty is imprisonment for up to six years.

Art. 240 of the Criminal Code provides that “defamation” against a deceased person shall incur a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

No provisions.

Criminal blasphemy was repealed in Iceland in June 2015. Previously, “[r]idiculing or insulting the dogmas or worship of a lawfully existing religious community in Iceland” was a criminal offence under Art. 125 of the Icelandic Criminal Code. The punishment was a fine or imprisonment for up to three months.

N/A

General notes

In practice nearly all defamation cases in Iceland are brought as so-called “civil-criminal cases”. This means that a person who claims to have been defamed according to the relevant articles in the Criminal Code files a civil law suit, but demands that the defendant be punished according to the terms of the Criminal Code (i.e. with a fine or imprisonment). This suit automatically also consists of a private claim for damages, so that the plaintiff may, at the same time, demand compensation for pain and suffering under the Tort Liability Act.

It is perceived that the main reason why defamation cases are brought as civil-criminal cases and not as purely civil cases is that, in the latter, plaintiffs must pay court fees, which can be substantial, especially if the case is appealed. In order to avoid this, plaintiffs simply file a civil-criminal action and demand criminal punishment, even though it is clear that the courts normally will award only civil damages.

Selected cases

In 2014, lawyers for an Icelandic Interior Ministry official requested prison time for two journalists who erroneously identified the official as a target in a police investigation into a government leak. In June of that year, journalists Jón Bjarki Magnússon and Jóhann Páll Jóhannsson had incorrectly identified Þórey Vilhjálmsdóttir, a political assistant to Iceland’s interior minister, as “employee B”, who the investigation appeared to suggest had leaked documents last year containing sensitive information related to a Nigerian asylum seeker. The publication of the documents, which were later found to have been partially doctored, occurred shortly before the man’s deportation from Iceland. The journalists’ newspaper, DV, issued a correction and apology on the same day the report was published and, according to reports, promptly informed other Icelandic media houses of the mistake. The police investigation had, in fact, identified a different Interior Ministry official as “employee B”. Reports also stated that the journalists had “repeatedly” sought comment from Vilhjálmsdóttir prior to publication, but that she declined to respond. Despite the apology, Vilhjálmsdóttir opted to press charges under Arts. 234 (insult) and 235 (defamation) of the Icelandic Penal Code. Her lawyers announced they would seek the “maximum punishment”, which is one year in prison for each offence. Vilhjálmsdóttir also requested damages in the amount of 3 million krónur (approx. €20,000), in addition to 900,000 krónur (approx. €5,500) in legal costs .

Criminal blasphemy was repealed in Iceland in June 2015. Previously, “[r]idiculing or insulting the dogmas or worship of a lawfully existing religious community in Iceland” was a criminal offence under Art. 125 of the Icelandic Criminal Code. The punishment was a fine or imprisonment for up to three months.

In 2016, a bill was introduced by an opposition MP, Steinunn Þóra Árnadóttir, to repeal Criminal Code Art. 95, with plans to reintroduce the proposal during the 2017 parliamentary season. It is unclear whether the bill will be acted upon .

In 2011, Iceland’s new Media Law entered into force. Notably, the law included strengthened protections for journalists’ sources. It also expressly releases the press from liability for defamatory statements made by third parties, following a series of related ECtHR judgments against Iceland. However, this first success was overshadowed by significant criticism by press freedom groups over other provisions of the law, including the establishment of a “State Media Committee”, which would oversee media legal compliance and registration requirements. Thousands of people signed an unsuccessful petition calling for President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to veto the measure.

In June 2010, the Icelandic Parliament unanimously approved a resolution known as the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, which called for the country to adopt the world’s most progressive laws on transparency and freedom of expression. In addition to source protection and protection for whistleblowers, and a “wide-ranging” freedom of expression law, new legislation was intended to include the abolition of criminal libel and the implementation of safeguards against “libel tourism”. This repeal, however, has not yet been carried out.

Information for Iceland was originally collected by IPI as part of the “Out of Balance” report, published in January 2015 with support from the European Commission and incorporating research contributed by Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University in Budapest and by the SHARE Foundation in Belgrade. This entry was later expanded and updated by IPI as part of a study commissioned by the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

A fully footnoted version of this entry is available in the OSCE study. This entry was last updated in March 2017.

The information contained in this database is for informational and advocacy purposes only. If you are a journalist facing a defamation claim, you should seek legal advice from a qualified attorney. However, if you are unable to find such an attorney, IPI may be able to assist you in doing so. Please contact us at info(at)ipi.media.