The saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me” becomes irrelevant when it comes to defamation. Words can and will hurt us despite the message our literary forefathers were attempting to drive home. In fact, words are so powerful that a single act of defamation can derail someone’s entire career. 

Defamation, by nature, is harming a person’s reputation through acts of slander and libel. Slander is verbal defamation, which involves making false statements about someone orally. Libel is written defamation, where false statements about an individual are published. So, while sticks and stones may break our bones, and actions may even speak louder than words, let us not undercut the severe destruction that words may cause.

Now, whether these words are spoken aloud (slander), written down (libel), or stated online (internet defamation), someone is bound to face the wrath of defamation law. Anybody, at any given time, can exercise their right to freedom of speech. It just so happens that some exercise these rights while hiding behind their computer screens. Technology has found its place in contemporary society and its medium has been prevalently utilized to interact with others and express oneself.  Combined with the linguistic arsenal of social media, podcasts, comment sections, and blog posts, people have the world at their fingertips and can practically say anything they want about anybody. This podium, front and center amidst the World Wide Web, will inevitably lead to internet defamation.

Internet Defamation

Internet defamation, also known as cyber slander, occurs when someone makes a false statement online that negatively impacts another person’s reputation. An example of this, specifically related to cyber slander, would be if a young Zoomer hopped in front of his tripod to film his weekly podcast and spoke false information about the upcoming election. Say, he lied about either Biden’s or Trump’s campaign which, in turn, caused a downward trend in votes among either of their supporters, despite the actual facts of their campaigns. This could certainly constitute cyber slander and, even more so, internet defamation. 

How to Deal with Internet Defamation 

If you ever found yourself on the victim side of cyber slander or cyber libel, addressing the situation is likely the hardest part. It is important, as frustrating as this may sound, to remain calm so that you have the ability to think clearly and logically. Then, it is time to collect any evidence that supports your stance as a victim of defamation. Since we are dealing with a case of online defamation, be sure to take screenshots, save videos, provide website or social media links, and collect any other concrete information about the fraudulent offender. 

Once identified, it is worth it to try to settle the issue between both parties cordially so that it never sets foot in the courtroom. You can also report the defamatory statement to the appropriate platforms (i.e., YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.). If the problem persists, filing a lawsuit may be the only course of action. At this point, it is important to rely on your attorney and the tangible evidence you have both gathered. Just remember that the perpetrator must be proven along with the defamatory statement they have made. To prove defamatory nature, you must be able to identify the statement as both false and harmful to your reputation, prove the emotional distress it has caused you, and tangibly show any financial loss directly correlated with the cyber slander or libel. If justice prevails, you will expectantly collect rewards in economic, emotional harm, and loss of reputation damages.

Defamation Law and Free Speech

Now that we have established the main element of an internet defamation lawsuit as false statements made online that harm someone’s good standing, we can narrow down prospective online statements as both false and harmful ones. Yet, the complications of this legislation fall within the very premise of the American constitution that upholds the value of speaking one’s mind freely and openly. So, why do the words we say have anything to do with the law? As American psychologist Albert Mehrabian would tell you, it is not what you say but how you say it. Or, perhaps, a little bit of both in this case. 

For those thinking, This is America! What happened to our freedom of speech? look no further. If defamation law is regulated on the basis of words and speech, then can anyone really say anything they want? This brings into question a person’s true intentions, meta-communication, and accuracy of information when making a statement online. 

In Florida, for instance, defamation law still recognizes and protects a person’s right to speak, including opinions, subjective public comments, and criticisms. These are referred to as pure opinions and are neutral in relation to their informational accuracy, whether they are harmful to someone’s feelings or not. For example, one can make the false argument that Facebook was founded in 2010, but likely no one will bat an eye because the claim is merely incorrect but not harmful to anyone nor defamatory. Conversely, a group of golf fanatics may openly discuss the situation of Tiger Woods’s infidelity on their podcast, which would be harmful to Woods’s new-found reputation. Even so, this scenario is historically accurate and not defamatory either. 

However, if a statement of opinion contains a clear inkling of falsehood and has the potential to damage a reputation, a case of defamation may be in order, but it must meet legislative criteria for exactly what defamation is. This begs the question of whether or not we can speak controversially and get away with it, which falls back to our constitutional rights to free speech. 

The Concept of Freedom of Speech 

The concept of freedom of speech is an attractive one, much as the “American dream” preaches idealism. Though, while it is one thing to relish in the appeal of free speech and embrace it as a distinct part of American culture, it is entirely another to forget about the consequences of the words we speak or write, especially on the internet. To aid us in distinguishing between an instance of internet defamation and free speech, multiple principles provide some necessary guidance.

Firstly, free speech online is government-oriented. As long as one does not involve the government in some way with the videos they record or the comments they post, anything goes. Also, the limits to freedom of speech are few and far between, even when it comes to instances of hate speech or insensitive and immoral comments or opinions. As frustrating as this may seem, people, groups, or communities that function on the basis of immorality such as racism, sexism, or homophobia are still entitled to their opinions. The First Amendment protects this, but it also protects others’ rights to disagree. 

Speaking of protection, we arrive at the principle of government regulation. That is why the mention of free speech as government-oriented is greatly important to understand. A government’s responsibility is to keep order, allow for opportunity and prosperity, and provide justice. This is feasible when the law fosters a human condition that is fair and opportune, and in return, is followed. This standard is not met, however, if violence is incited, reputation is harmed, or someone’s livelihood or welfare is jeopardized. If free speech instigates any of these, the speech is rightfully punishable by law. 

Lastly, there is a distinction between what is morally acceptable and constitutionally acceptable. We must separate our perceptions of morality from the reality of the law. This is where ongoing societal fixation points such as cancel culture and condemning controversial topics become front and center. These circumstances are still constitutionally protected as long as violent, destructive, and illegal activity do not take place.  

Internet Defamation v. Free Speech Online

With these guiding principles, an act of internet defamation is not protected by First Amendment rights because it is unlawful in that it violates a person’s intellectual property, makes false remarks despite fact, and causes harm, suffering, and loss, which is socially and lawfully tortious. It is important to note that the online speech must meet all of these criteria as that is what constitutes any statements as defamatory, slanderous, and/or libelous. However, the constitution still protects any speech over the internet, fact or fiction, as long as it is not defamatory or cause for unlawful action. Unprotected speech is defamatory speech.