Defamation

Defamation is a legal term that is defined as any false statement that is made which harms a person's reputation, to the extent that what the person loses in terms of reputation can be defined in monetary terms. Defamation, when prosecuted, is either slander (verbal defamation) or libel (written defamation). Considering that the internet, especially instant messengers, can be considered to be spoken word whilst they are in actuality written word, nowadays in most jurisdictions libel and slander can be used interchangeably.

What must be proven in order to prove defamation

The following must be proven in order to have a case for defamation:

That what was said is false.
That the victim's identity can be identified by a random 3rd person.
That what was said harms the victim's reputation.
That the harm to the person or company's reputation can be represented in financial terms.
That the person's reputation is not already damaged to an extent that further damage cannot harm them further.
That what was said was not previously said elsewhere.

Proof that what was said is false

In order to prove that something is defamation, you must first prove, to the satisfaction of a court, that what was said is false. The person who is accused of defamation need not prove that what they said is true; the onus is on the person making the claim that what was said is entirely false. In cases where what is said could be interpreted as false or true, the courts will err on the side of the person who is being prosecuted. For example, if a person is accused of being a white supremist, but the evidence is ambiguous, then the courts should argue that a case of defamation is not warranted - even if in fact the person is not a white supremist. Failure to prove defamation therefore does not make the statement entirely true, rather it says that the statement is not entirely false.

No matter how nasty a statement might be, if it is true then it can never be defamation.

That the person can be identified by a random 3rd person

In the cases of public figures it is usually not difficult to prove that the person can be identified as a unique individual. However, in cases where a person is not named, but is suggested in some way, then they must be able to prove that they can be identified by a random 3rd person. In cases involving the internet, in most cases (unless they used their real name plus other identifying marks), this is usually one way that defamation is not able to be proven. If you say that "Crazygirl888" is a crazy person, but most people don't know who Crazygirl888 really is, then it doesn't matter if what you have said is false - it is not defamation. There are exceptions of course, in cases where a person's internet alias can be associated with a real life identity and where this link can be easily established.

The same is true for ambiguous statements that are made. For example, a comedian can say that "I met this fellow" and it is okay, but if they say "I met John Black from 14th street the other day" then it might be a case for defamation. In some jurisdictions, comedy can be an excuse for defamation, but this is not universally accepted as an excuse.

That what is said harms the victim's reputation

If something is false but is trivial, then there is no case for defamation. For example, calling out to someone that they are a long haired layabout, if untrue is rarely a major insult that is likely to harm their reputation (although in some cases it might be). Calling someone a racist or a homophobe or other things that can be described as lowest common denominator comments, on the other hand, are likely to damage a person's reputation.

That the harm to the person or company's reputation can be represented in financial terms

Defamation is ultimately about money, and hence the complainant must prove that the damage to their reputation has cost them in terms of monetary loss.

In some cases this is simple enough. If they lost their job due to a lie told, or lost money in some other way, then damage can be proven easily.

In other cases it is more difficult to be specific.

For example, Tom Cruise launched a successful defamation case about claims that he was homosexual. He was able to argue that the claims about him being a homosexual harmed his image in the eyes of people who see him as a role model who upholds good ideals, which includes his being heterosexual. If Tom Cruise in actual fact was homosexual, he would earn less money at the box office, would be less likely to get movie roles, and would overall earn less money.

This was seen as a successful argument, and this type of argument must be made in order to have a successful claim for defamation.

That the victim's reputation is not already damaged

If a person is already being rubbished everywhere, adding an additional lie that does not harm them in any real sense cannot be prosecuted against. For example, Michael Jackson has had his reputation damaged so much by child abuse scandals that if someone were to now claim falsely that he had abused a child, it probably would not be able to be a case for defamation. Falsely calling OJ Simpson a murderer, or falsely making some claims about Britney Spears's mental health would not harm their reputation further. Even if they were new claims about these general ideas, these would probably not be a case for defamation.

That what was said was not previously said elsewhere

A successful defence against defamation is that you are not the first person to have said this untrue thing. In this case, however, the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are not the first. If they fail to provide evidence that another person had said it previously, then they can be prosecuted, even if they were not in fact the first person to say it.

In the case that this defence is successfully used, a new claim can then be made against the person who first said this.

In the case that the person who first said it said it in a way that cannot be prosecuted in legal terms, the court will probably argue that the first person who said it in a prosecutable way is nonetheless culpable.

For example, if User:BadBoy3333 first said "Michael Wilson is a homosexual" but this was repeated by a person using his real name John Black in an open statement, then John Black cannot use the excuse that User:BadBoy3333 said it first, since User:BadBoy3333 cannot be identified and since statements that are made by anonymous persons usually are not taken seriously.

On the other hand, if it was first said by Paul Jones, then John Black would have a defence, and now Paul Jones would be prosecuted.

International laws

In most countries, defamation cannot be prosecuted overseas. Therefore, in effect, anyone who is not in USA can say whatever they like to anyone on the internet with relative safety. People in USA, however, are likely to be speaking about other people in USA and hence must be more careful.

There are exceptions, however, as in one case in Australia there was a successful prosecution for defamation when a US magazine defamed an Australian public figure. The prosecution was based on the fact that the magazine could be seen in Australia over the internet, arguing successfully that it was therefore, in effect, published in Australia, by means of the internet.

Whilst this case in theory opened the way for truly international laws for defamation, this has not actually eventuated, as this has remained the only such case, either in Australia or overseas.