Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 942.01 (2026)
Defamation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
942.01(1)(1) Whoever with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a 3rd person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
942.01(2)(2) Defamatory matter is anything which exposes the other to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society or injury in the other’s business or occupation.
942.01(3)(3) This section does not apply if the defamatory matter was true and was communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends or if the communication was otherwise privileged.
942.01(4)(4) No person shall be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of 2 other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty or no contest.
942.01 AnnotationThe defense of conditional privilege applies to criminal defamation, but the defense is not absolute and may be forfeited if abused. State v. Gilles, 173 Wis. 2d 101, 496 N.W.2d 133 (Ct. App. 1992).
942.01 AnnotationPerjury committed in a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged under sub. (3). The sanction for perjury is under the perjury statute, s. 946.31, and not under the defamation statute. State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 219 Wis. 2d 516, 579 N.W.2d 678 (1998), 96-3605.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 579 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1998).
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 579 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1998). “exercised its discretion when it refused to admit into evidence in a criminal proceeding statements made by an assistant district attorney to the circuit court during preliminary proceedings in a prior criminal prosecution; and (2) Whether the absolute civil privilege for…”
State v. Baron, 2009 WI 58 (Wis. 2009). “" ¶ 6 Baron was charged as follows: criminal defamation in violation of Wis. Stat. § 942.01 (1), which was voluntarily dismissed by the State; two counts of obstructing an officer in violation of Wis.”
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 571 N.W.2d 406 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “CRIMINAL DEFAMATION — § 942.01, Stats. Cardenas-Hernandez moved to dismiss the two defamation charges on the ground that his testimony at the John Doe proceeding was absolutely privileged under § 942.”
Voisine v. United States, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4061 (2016). “2-209 (2014) ; Wis. Stat. § 942.01 (2005). I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel.”
State v. Gilles, 496 N.W.2d 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “, nor case law instructs whether the defense of conditional privilege as recognized in the civil tort of defamation and as addressed in *111 the Restatement is applicable under the criminal defamation statute. The statute merely provides that defamation is not committed if the…”
Gillund v. Meridian Mut. Ins., 2010 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “The closest would be Wisconsin's defamation statute, Wis. Stat. § 942.01 , but that differs in that it requires the *22 specific intent to defame and the absence of truth.”
Frese v. Formella, 53 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022). “2-417 (2021); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 942.01 (2021). I am mindful that not all criminal defamation prosecutions 12 will be successful, and yes, as my colleagues note, supra note 1, malicious prosecution might in some instances exist as a means to pursue recourse for wrongful…”
State v. Baron, 2008 WI App 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Baron was charged with six counts: criminal defamation in violation of Wis. Stat. § 942.01 (1); two counts of obstructing an officer in violation of Wis.”
Wozniak v. Local 1111 of the United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am., 205 N.W.2d 369 (Wis. 1973). “The maximum fine for defamation under sec. 942.01, Stats., is $1,000. The defendants are unable to point to any errors which took place entitling them to a new trial nor can they show any specific factors indicating that the jury was motivated by passion and prejudice.”
Calero v. Del Chem. Corp., 228 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. 1975). “The maximum fine for defamation under sec. 942.01, Stats., is $1,000. The award here is nine times that.”
Gianoli v. Pfleiderer, 563 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Defamation, a violation of § 942.01, STATS., is also a Class A misdemeanor.”
State v. Burrows, 925 N.W.2d 789 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 942.01(1). Burrows sent threatening and harassing letters, orchestrated inflammatory and derogatory voicemail messages, and delivered a baby python snake to E.”
— Wis. Stat. § 942.01(1) — 1 case
State v. Burrows, 925 N.W.2d 789 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 942.01(1). Burrows sent threatening and harassing letters, orchestrated inflammatory and derogatory voicemail messages, and delivered a baby python snake to E.”
— Wis. Stat. § 942.01(3) — 2 cases
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 571 N.W.2d 406 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “CRIMINAL DEFAMATION — § 942.01, Stats. Cardenas-Hernandez moved to dismiss the two defamation charges on the ground that his testimony at the John Doe proceeding was absolutely privileged under § 942.”
State v. Cardenas-Hernandez, 579 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1998). “exercised its discretion when it refused to admit into evidence in a criminal proceeding statements made by an assistant district attorney to the circuit court during preliminary proceedings in a prior criminal prosecution; and (2) Whether the absolute civil privilege for…”
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.