That's the theory, anyway. In practice, the Japan Sumo Association won a major defamation suit against a tabloid claiming matches were being rigged, despite there being incontrovertible proof that matches were being rigged and the Sumo Association itself expelling a dozen wrestlers for their part in the scheme.

And even non-verbal acts can be defamation. For example showing middle finger to somebody can be defamation and I have heard that using gardening hose to make other person wet could also be defamation.

There is also one other crime in the Finnish law that can make it crime to tell true facts called "yksityiselämää loukkaava tiedon levittäminen" (which means basically spreading information in a way that it violates persons privacy). For example writing in a newspaper that "a woman was molested by her father and now has HIV" could lead to a conviction even if all the facts are true, if that woman has not wanted to make this information public and if readers are able to recognize who this woman is.

Is it actually DEFAMATION then, not something akin to "false light"[1]? (I can't define such a term, since I lack both character and fitness, and thus lack a JD, and thus can't understand why some people seem to have different standards of behavior than others in this cursed commonwealth[2])

[1] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania-false-light

[2] I'm not your friend, but I am in Pennsylvania today.

For example, saying that someone is involved in a crime it a way that make people think he is guilty when he is, in fact, the victim. For example, "Mr.X is involved in a series of robberies" when he has been robbed.

Other cases where defamation can be invoked is with illegally obtained, private information. For example "Mr.X has been diagnosed with $medical_condition, so...", a clear violation of medical privacy, especially if the one making the accusation is a doctor.