Simply put: defamation = lies. And in the online space, there is a whole lot of it.

Of course, defamation is more complex than just “lies.” Defamation really means an injurious lie; a lie that leads to someone suffering some kind of harm. It is the harm itself that makes the lie actionable, and removes the lie from First Amendment free speech protection.

Elements of a Defamation Claim

Defamation, which encompasses both libel (written) and slander (spoken), is a legal claim that allows victims of injurious lies to collect monetary damages in order to compensate them for provable monetary losses. The elements that one must prove to win a defamation action are: (1) that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.

Public Figures, Defamation, and the First Amendment’s Right to Free Speech

This gets more complicated when the plaintiff is a public figure: the public figure must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice,” which requires proof of an intent to lie, or at least a reckless disregard for the truth. Because of this extra hurdle, it is very hard for public figures to successfully sue for defamation. And that makes sense—public figures receive the benefits of the spotlight, so the law burdens them with some of that light’s consequences.

However, the true justification lies in the First Amendment’s right of free speech. Defamation law has always butted up against the First Amendment, and the two bodies of law must coexist. Because defamation law enables a censorship of speech, it must do so carefully, so it does not offend the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Because public figures are more discussed, and because, particularly for politicians, that discussion is considered socially valuable, the speech that makes up that discussion is protected more. This results in individual, public figures having a much harder time censoring that speech with a defamation action.

Defamation Law and the Internet: Online Defamation

But defamation law continues to evolve, and with the rise of the Internet, it must do so quickly. While the Internet has led to expansive knowledge dispersion, it has also provided would-be defamers with a perfect platform for dispersing their lies worldwide, with just the click of a button. Internet users can hide behind screen names and user handles, anonymously attacking anyone at any time. Adding another layer of complication is the Communications Decency Act, which makes the websites publishing the defamation immune from suit in almost every situation, so only the individual who defamed can be sued. Many times, that individual cannot be found.

Defamation Attorneys

This has made defamation law—an already complicated body of law—much more complicated. It is important to find a good attorney who knows the law and understands how the law operates in cyberspace. If you have been defamed online, or have been accused of defamation, contact one of our expert Internet Defamation Attorneys at 855-743-8474.

Online Defamation and Section 230 Immunity

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), is the primary legal framework governing platform liability for defamatory user content. It provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In practical terms, this means that platforms like Facebook, Twitter/X, Yelp, Reddit, and review sites cannot be sued for defamation based on content their users post—even if they were notified of the content and chose not to remove it.

Section 230’s immunity, however, does not extend to the person who posted the defamatory content. The speaker—whether posting under their real name or anonymously—remains fully liable for defamatory statements. Courts have consistently held that § 230 protects the platform but leaves the original poster exposed to defamation liability under state law.

The Opinion Privilege: What Is and Is Not Defamatory

One of the most important defenses in defamation law is the opinion privilege. The First Amendment protects pure expressions of opinion—statements that cannot be proven true or false. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court declined to create a separate constitutional privilege for opinion, but confirmed that statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts are protected. The test articulated in Milkovich and applied by courts at the state level examines: (1) the specific language of the statement; (2) whether the statement is verifiable—capable of being proven true or false; (3) the context of the statement; and (4) the broader social context.

A restaurant review saying “this place has terrible service” is pure opinion—it reflects the reviewer’s subjective experience. A review saying “the chef is a convicted felon who uses expired ingredients” contains specific, verifiable facts that, if false, are actionable defamation. Drawing the line between protected opinion and actionable false facts is the central analytical challenge in most online defamation cases.

Jurisdiction in Online Defamation Cases

Because defamatory content on the internet is accessible worldwide, jurisdiction in online defamation cases can be complex. Most courts apply a “effects test” drawn from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984): personal jurisdiction over the defamer is proper in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff’s reputation was primarily felt, if the defendant knew the plaintiff was located there and aimed the defamatory content at that jurisdiction. For businesses, this typically means the business’s principal place of operation. For individuals, it is typically their domicile.

The statute of limitations for defamation claims varies by state—Michigan’s is three years under M.C.L. § 600.5805(9)—but the question of when the clock starts in internet defamation cases has been litigated extensively. Most jurisdictions follow the “single publication rule,” under which the limitations period begins when the content is first posted online, not each time it is accessed. This means that old defamatory posts, even if still online and still causing harm, may be outside the statute of limitations.

Damages in Online Defamation Cases

Defamation plaintiffs may recover several categories of damages. Actual damages include provable economic losses—lost business, lost employment, or other concrete financial harm—as well as non-economic harm to reputation and emotional distress. Where a statement is defamation per se (accusing the plaintiff of a crime, of conduct incompatible with their business or profession, or of having a loathsome disease), presumed damages may be available without proof of specific harm. Punitive damages are available where the defendant acted with actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Calculating and proving damages in internet defamation cases often requires expert testimony about the plaintiff’s lost business opportunities, harm to SEO ranking, and the amplification effect of viral online content. Digital forensics experts can document the spread of defamatory content and the difficulty of suppressing it once widely distributed.

If you have been defamed online, or if you have been accused of online defamation and need to defend yourself, contact Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 or complete the contact form on this page. Our internet defamation attorneys have experience pursuing and defending claims across all major digital platforms.

If you need help evaluating an online defamation claim—whether as a plaintiff or defendant—contact Revision Legal at 855-473-8474.