Series: Before You Publish - When Words Become A Lawsuit
- Hampton Law Firm ⚖️
- May 15
- 10 min read
Updated: Jul 1
Defamation, Slander, Libel, and the Real Cost of Saying It Anyway
Ethical and Responsible Reporting and Journalism, Written By Judith L. Hampton, Attorney At Law
People say things every day. They say things in anger, in group messages, in parking lots, in workplaces, in church circles, at ballfields, in salons, in courthouse hallways, in comment sections, on Facebook posts, in TikToks, in live videos, and in private messages that somehow never stay private. Sometimes they say those things because they are hurt. Sometimes because they are angry. Sometimes because they enjoy the attention. And sometimes because they have convinced themselves that “just venting,” “just warning people,” “just asking questions,” or “just repeating what I heard” makes the harm disappear.
It does not. Words can cause damage, and when words are false, harmful, and shared with other people, they can become more than gossip. They can become legal exposure. They can become evidence. They can become exhibits. They can become the beginning of a lawsuit that no comment section, deleted post, or after-the-fact apology can neatly undo.
In plain English, defamation generally refers to a false statement presented as fact that harms another person’s reputation. Slander is commonly used to describe spoken defamation, while libel is commonly used to describe written or published defamation. A false accusation spoken out loud in a public setting may raise slander concerns. A false accusation written in a Facebook post, online comment, text screenshot, email, article, caption, shared graphic, or public thread may raise libel concerns.
Social media has made this area more serious, not less. A live video, recorded statement, captioned post, shared screenshot, comment thread, or online “exposé” may create a permanent record of words that used to disappear after a conversation ended. The internet did not make defamation disappear. It made it easier to preserve, screenshot, timestamp, subpoena, and prove.
Under Louisiana law, civil responsibility for harm is rooted in the principle that a person whose fault causes damage to another may be obligated to repair that damage. Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 states that “[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” Louisiana courts have described defamation claims as involving a false and defamatory statement concerning another, unprivileged publication to a third party, fault on the part of the publisher, and resulting injury.
Concept | Plain-English Meaning | Why It Matters Before Publishing |
Statement of fact | A claim presented as something true, not merely personal preference | “I dislike her” is different from “she committed fraud.” |
Publication | Sharing the statement with someone other than the person discussed | A post, live video, email, group message, or comment thread can spread the statement. |
Falsity | The statement is not true or cannot be proven as stated | Confidence is not evidence, and repetition is not verification. |
Fault or malice | Depending on the circumstances, the law may examine what the speaker knew, ignored, or failed to verify | Motive, reckless disregard, negligence, bias, and failure to correct may matter. |
Injury | Harm caused by the statement | Reputation, business, employment, emotional distress, and professional standing can all be affected. |
Not every rude comment is defamation. Not every insult is defamation. Not every opinion is defamation. Saying, “I do not like her,” is usually a personal opinion. Saying, “I think he handled that badly,” is usually criticism. But saying, “She stole money,” “He abused a child,” “That business committed fraud,” “That lawyer broke the law,” “That teacher is dangerous,” or “That person is corrupt,” may be treated very differently if the statement is false, presented as fact, and shared with others.
That distinction matters because certain accusations carry extraordinary weight. A statement that accuses someone of a crime, professional misconduct, abuse, fraud, corruption, dishonesty, or conduct that damages their work or reputation is not casual speech simply because it was typed quickly. It is not harmless simply because it was posted with a dramatic caption. And it is not magically protected because it was popular with the audience. It doesn't become magically protected by claiming "I heard from inside sources inside law enforcement that there is a police report". It doesn't become magically protected by claiming "I saw a copy of the initial police report they are claiming involved this family".
You know why? Because a purported initial police report does not have investigation, evidence, context, circumstances, statements of all parties, prior witnesses with knowledge of situations, actual facts as to what truly occurred. Those details come out through investigations, legal processes, examination of all facts from all sides. That is why the fact of claiming an "initial police report" of a claimed incident does not magically protect you from legal exposure.
Especially if facts also reveal that little to no investigation was done prior to publishing, all parties were not contacted or provided opportunities to provide clarification, context, disputed allegations, and that minor children involved were not provided an opportunity to be protected from the damaged caused by the unethical publishing. That is one thing I wish more people understood about legal cases, context matters, circumstantial evidence matters. The chain of custody of the information matters. The lack of opportunity for investigation matters. The fact that you tell a party to your publishing that you are doing solely because the story involves public names, whether it is true or not, that certainly doesn't shield you from legal exposure.
My point is this - if you are going to purport to be a serious journalist, with a serious talent and a serious love and heart and passion for helping and protecting the public - then you do so by training, education, experience, making sure that no matter how ugly the situation, your journalistic integrity doesn't compromise by how you tell the story - you don't compromise your ethics by failing to investigate, failing to protect minor children, failing to provide ample opportunity for both sides to be heard legally and ethically for clarification and context - you don't target people and families during times of marital struggle simply because of their names. (Truthfully what the best humans do in that situation - is offer support and lifelines to others drowning in life - because anyone truly serving for the good of the public has one single goal in mind - TO SUPPORT OTHERS NOT TEAR THEM DOWN. I will fight anyone on that stance.)
This is why people should be careful before posting, repeating, sharing, forwarding, commenting on, or publicly discussing accusations they cannot prove. A screenshot is not always proof. A rumor is not proof. A witness statement is not always proof. A tip is not proof. A comment section is not proof. A person saying something confidently is not proof. And, perhaps most importantly, repeating someone else’s false statement does not automatically protect the person who helps spread it.
That last point matters. Many people think, “Well, I did not make it up. I just shared it.” That may not be enough. If you publish, repost, repeat, amplify, embellish, comment on, or help spread a false statement that harms someone, you may become part of the damage. The fact that someone else said it first does not always make it safe for you to say it next.
Truth is one of the most important defenses in a defamation case, but the key word is truth. Louisiana law specifically allows a defendant in a civil suit for slander, defamation, or libel to plead and prove the truth of the words as justification. That means truth must be provable. Not “I heard it was true.” Not “everybody knows.” Not “someone sent me a message.” Not “I believed the source.” Not “it sounded right.” Truth means the statement can be supported with evidence.
There is also a meaningful difference between protected opinion and a statement of fact dressed up as opinion. “In my opinion, she is rude” is not the same as “In my opinion, she committed fraud.” Adding the words “in my opinion” does not automatically protect a person if the statement implies a false factual claim. The same caution applies to the word “allegedly.” People sometimes think that adding “allegedly” makes any statement safe. It does not.
Context matters. Tone matters. Framing matters. What the speaker knew matters. What the speaker ignored matters. Whether the person had a meaningful opportunity to respond matters. Whether the speaker corrected false information matters. Whether there was a personal motive, grudge, bias, rivalry, financial interest, or desire for attention may also matter. Defamation is often not about one sentence in isolation; it is about the whole picture.
The questions are rarely limited to “What was said?” The better questions are often broader: Where was it said? Who heard it? Was it written or spoken? Was it shared publicly? Was the person named, or could the person be identified without being named? Was the statement presented as fact? Was it false? Was it harmful? Was there proof? Was there negligence, malice, reckless disregard, or failure to verify? Was the person a private citizen, public official, public figure, business owner, or licensed professional? Was the subject a matter of public concern?
Those details can change the legal analysis.
The practical advice, however, is much simpler: before publishing something harmful about another person, ask whether you can prove it. Not whether you feel it. Not whether you suspect it. Not whether people will believe it. Not whether a crowd will applaud it. Not whether it will get shared. Whether you can prove it. Not whether it was alleged, even alleged in an initial police report or call notes, that happens all day every day, disclosing those completely unverified and one sided allegations absolutely do not provide proof of any indications of criminal wrong doing or corruption on one's character. I caution anyone from doing so.
Read Carefully: Examples of statements that may create defamation concerns include claiming someone committed a crime when they did not, accusing someone of child abuse, domestic abuse, theft, fraud, corruption, or professional misconduct without proof, stating that a business scams people when that is false, claiming someone lost a professional license when they did not, describing someone as dangerous, dishonest, or criminal as a factual assertion without evidence, sharing false allegations from an anonymous tip, reposting accusations while encouraging others to harass or punish the person, or using captions, edits, sarcasm, and commentary to make an unproven allegation appear proven.
Defamation can cause real damage. It can cost someone clients. It can cost someone a job. It can damage a business. It can affect custody, marriage, friendships, church relationships, professional standing, and community trust. It can cause humiliation, anxiety, fear, emotional distress, isolation, and the quiet terror of walking into a room where people believe they already know a story that was never fairly told.
There is also another reason careful speech matters: lawsuits are not just about money. They are about discovery. They are about screenshots, subpoenas, depositions, metadata, deleted posts, anonymous accounts, sources, group chats, messages, motives, prior conflicts, and what a person knew or should have known before clicking “publish.” A delete button is not a time machine. A correction does not always travel as far as the accusation. And “I did not think it would go that far” is not the same as “I did not cause harm.”
This does not mean every defamation case is easy. It does not mean every mean statement becomes a lawsuit. It does not mean people cannot criticize public officials, businesses, community leaders, lawyers, schools, agencies, institutions, or people in power. They can. Public speech matters. Accountability matters. Truth matters. People should be able to report wrongdoing, complain about real harm, share honest experiences, and ask serious questions.
But there is a difference between criticism and false accusation. There is a difference between opinion and a false statement of fact. There is a difference between accountability and public destruction. There is a difference between warning the public and using the public to punish someone.
There is a difference between posting a matter that concerns public safety vs. a private marital dispute involving unsubstantiated allegations involving minor children, criminal conduct, corrupt conduct among other things, naming a persons name, business, phone number, location while alleging a crime, based upon a mere reference to a report, without proper investigative reporting, allowing all parties to provide statements and context before writing and publishing a story, protecting the parties to the best of the ethical standards demand, protecting the minor children involved, and most importantly, not publishing until you can absolutely prove that what you are implying is true.
Remember, using the word "allegedly" does not safeguard you from legal liability. There is a difference between posting on social media that you spoke with "a victim" vs " a party to the matter under investigation". That difference matters in court. That difference matters, and people who claim to serve the public should care enough to understand it.
There are also deadlines. Louisiana Civil Code article 3493.1 now provides that delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of two years, beginning from the day injury or damage is sustained, for actions governed by that provision. Anyone dealing with a potential defamation issue should speak with a lawyer promptly because deadlines, publication dates, republication, discovery of harm, the nature of the parties, and possible exceptions can matter.
The better approach, of course, is not to wait until a lawsuit exists. The better approach is to be careful before the words leave your mouth or keyboard. Before posting, ask whether the statement is true, whether it can be proven, whether it is fact or opinion, whether context is missing, whether the information has been verified, whether someone else’s allegation is being repeated as though it has been proven, and whether the real goal is to inform people or hurt someone.
There are two additional questions that may sober up even the boldest keyboard warrior: Would I say this under oath? Would I be comfortable producing my messages about this in court? If the answer is no, the wiser choice may be to pause, verify, revise, or stay silent.
Words can expose truth. They can protect people. They can demand accountability. They can also destroy someone who did not deserve to be destroyed. Use them carefully. Use them honestly. Use them with the discipline expected of anyone who claims to inform the public. Because when words become exhibits, the performance is over, and the proof begins.
Why using the word “allegedly” won’t always save you;
References
Drafted by Judith L. Hampton, Attorney At Law
Hampton Law Firm
© Judith L. Hampton. All rights reserved.
This blog post is provided for general informational and commentary purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Anyone dealing with a potential defamation, libel, slander, or related civil claim should consult an attorney about the specific facts and deadlines involved.
Comments