Partner
Whenever there is a statement made that injures someone’s reputation, the terms defamation, libel, and slander are thrown around. The terms are commonly misused interchangeably. Defamation is the act of making a false statement that harms someone’s reputation. Both libel and slander are forms of defamation. All of the terms fall under the legal category of torts, which allows a person who is harmed to file a civil suit under state law against the party who committed the harm. The internet has opened up individuals to internet slander and internet libel as well, and made it much easier for on individual person to be subject to either defamation or a defamation lawsuit.
Internet Defamation: What is Defamation?
Libel is the written form of defamation, and is expressed through writing, print, pictures, signs, or any other physical communication. This may harm a person’s reputation, expose a person to public humiliation or criticism, or injure the person’s business or profession. While statements made online have limited censorship, harmful reviews on popular sites like Yelp and Amazon are considered libel.
Internet Libel: How Do I Deal With It?
Removing Defamatory Reviews from Websites like Yelp
Slander is the spoken form of defamation. It is the act of verbally spreading an untruthful statement about another person, which will harm that person’s reputation. However, statements made on the air during television or radio broadcasts are considered libel rather than slander because of the idea that it reaches a larger audience like printed publications. This may also be the case in today’s social media driven world. Statements made through video blogging on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat are certainly subject to defamation laws. The ability to share your thoughts online is a gift and a curse.
Free Speech Rights Do Not Protect You Against Defamatory Statements You Make
In order to win a defamation claim, the plaintiff has to show four elements: 1) there was a false statement; 2) the statement was published or communicated to a third party; 3) there was a party at fault; and 4) there was harm to the person or entity that was the subject of the false statement.
The burden of proving defamation varies among states and the type of claim. For private defamation claims, meaning a private person, the defendant may be liable regardless of his guilty intent. On the other hand, for public figures, such as politicians, entertainers, etc., to prevail on a defamation claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with disregard to its truthfulness.
Aside from the common defense that the alleged defaming state is true, there are absolute and qualified privileges. Absolute privilege may be used as a defense to defamation when the person is making the statement as a witness in a court proceeding. The reason is that there are specific consequences for that person if they fail to tell the truth when testifying. Qualified privileges occur in a few states for situations where an employer references a former employee particularly when discussing misconduct and reasons for discharge.
Due to the right of freedom of expression under the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that States have limited power when awarding damages for defamation suits. For example, in the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court stated that statements regarding matters of public concern are one of the primary protections guaranteed under the First Amendment; therefore, a State’s interest in compensating an individual for damage to their reputation is outweighed by the public concern. However, the Court does recognize that there is a strong, legitimate interest in compensating individuals for damage to their reputations and has allowed compensation for actual injury.
For more information about privacy, contact Revision Legal’s team of experienced defamation attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
Image courtesy of Flickr user Robert Sharp.
The internet has transformed both the reach of defamatory statements and the complexity of defamation litigation. A single false post on a platform like Facebook, Twitter/X, or a business review site can reach millions of people within hours. Understanding how traditional defamation doctrine applies — and how courts have adapted it to online speech — is essential for anyone who believes they have been defamed or who has been accused of making a defamatory statement.
Courts apply a four-element test derived from common law and shaped by the First Amendment. First, the statement must be an objectively verifiable false statement of fact — pure opinion is generally not actionable, but a statement that implies a false underlying fact can be. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). Second, the statement must be published — communicated to at least one third party. In the internet context, posting to a publicly accessible page satisfies this element even if only one person reads it. Third, the defendant must be at fault: private figures must show negligence, while public figures and public officials must satisfy the higher actual malice standard — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Fourth, the plaintiff must show damages, though libel and slander per se categories presume damages without specific proof.
Defamation per se refers to statements so obviously harmful that damages are presumed. Most states recognize four categories: accusations of criminal conduct, statements that a person has a loathsome disease, statements injurious to a person’s trade or profession, and statements imputing sexual misconduct. For business owners, false statements that undermine professional reputation typically fall into per se territory, making these claims somewhat easier to prosecute than per quod claims requiring proof of special damages.
Many states have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes designed to protect defendants from meritless defamation suits filed to silence criticism. California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) allows defendants to file a special motion to strike a defamation complaint if it arises from protected speech on a matter of public concern, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing. An anti-SLAPP motion can result in early dismissal and an award of attorney fees to the defendant — so plaintiffs must carefully evaluate the strength of their claim before filing. Texas, Michigan, and many other states have similar statutes.
One of the central challenges in online defamation cases is identifying a defendant who posted anonymously. Courts have developed a pre-litigation discovery process — typically a John Doe subpoena — to compel platforms to reveal the identity of anonymous posters when a plaintiff can make a threshold showing of a viable defamation claim. Courts apply varying standards, including the more demanding Dendrite standard (Dendrite Int’l v. Doe, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (2001)) and the Cahill standard (Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)). Working with experienced internet defamation attorneys significantly improves the chances of identifying an anonymous defendant before the statute of limitations runs.
A successful defamation plaintiff may recover actual damages for economic losses and reputational harm, presumed damages for per se defamation, punitive damages in cases of actual malice, and injunctive relief ordering removal of the defamatory content. Courts have become more willing to issue injunctive relief in online defamation cases as they have recognized the ongoing harm caused by content that persists indefinitely in search engine results.
If you believe you have been defamed online or in print, or if you have been accused of making a defamatory statement, Revision Legal’s defamation attorneys can evaluate your situation and advise on the best course of action. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through the contact form on this page.
Defamation and false light invasion of privacy are related but distinct legal claims for harmful false statements. Here’s how they differ and what plaintiffs must prove to win.
Read more about Defamation and False Light Invasion of Privacy
Internet libel can spread rapidly and cause lasting damage to your reputation. Revision Legal’s internet defamation attorneys explain your legal options for removing and recovering from online libel.
Read more about Libel on the Internet: How to Deal With It
Getting defamatory content removed from ComplaintsBoard and RipOffReport requires legal action or platform procedures. Here’s how to pursue removal of false online reviews.
Read more about Removing Defamation from Review Sites