§
Subdivision 1.Definition.
Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.
§
Subd. 2.Acts constituting.
Whoever with knowledge of its false and defamatory character orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any false and defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
§
Subd. 3.Justification.
Violation of subdivision 2 is justified if:
(1) the communication is absolutely privileged; or
(2) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern; or
(3) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative or other public or official proceedings; or
(4) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with intent to further such interest or duty.
§
Subd. 4.Testimony required.
No person shall be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty.
Notes of Decisions
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner, 864 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 60× “Appellant Timothy Turner challenges his conviction of criminal defamation, arguing that Minn.Stat. § 609.765 violates First Amendment protections because it is facially overbroad.”
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co., 610 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 17× “That statute provides several privileges, specifically: that a'Violation of “subdivision 2 is justified if:1 * * * (I) The communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair- summary of any judicial, legislative or other public or official proceedings ⅜ * *.”
Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016).
“Plenty of States still criminalize libel. See, e.g., Ala. Code. § 13A-11-160 (2015) ; Fla.”
State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 2× “7 The State does not explain how subdivision 1 — which prohibits all knowingly false statements regarding the conduct of others — fails to advance the State’s interest in preventing the unwarranted diversion of investigative resources.”
Frese v. Formella, 53 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022).
“370 (2021); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.765 (2021); N.H. Rev.”
Hurley v. Nw. Publications, Inc., 273 F. Supp. 967 (D. Minnesota 1967).
· cites it 2× “However, the Advisory Committee Comment following the section on criminal defamation, Minnesota Criminal Code, 1963, Minn.Stat. § 609.765, says with respect to Subd.”
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co., 594 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 609.765, subd. 3(4) (1998) (current version of fair report justification for criminal defamation makes no mention of malice).”
Larson v. Gannett Co., 915 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “at 333 (citing Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.765 , advisory comm.”
Myers v. Fulbright, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (D. Mont. 2019).
“…at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty. Minn. Stat. § 609.765 (2018).”
Ashley Anderson v. Adam Aaron Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 609.765 , subd. 2 (2024). Ashley failed to allege that respondents knew of the report’s false and defamatory character.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.