On social media words travel fast and the tone is often sharp. A meme, a joke, an "asking for a friend" followed by an innuendo: where does freedom of expression end and harm to reputation begin? There is no mathematical formula, but there are recurring criteria that help you find your bearings, whether you are the target or the one writing.
Facts and opinions: the most useful distinction
The first criterion is to distinguish between attributing facts and expressing opinions.
- "That accountant got my tax return wrong and refused to fix it" reports a fact, which may be true or false.
- "That accountant is unprofessional" expresses an opinion, which is subjective by nature.
A false, damaging fact is the typical ground of defamation. A negative opinion, if based on true facts and not degenerating into insult, generally falls within the right to criticise. The problem arises when an opinion is built on invented facts, or when the form of an opinion is used to suggest a specific fact that has never been proven.
Insinuations count as much as statements
Many people think they are protected by using the conditional or a question. It does not work that way. Phrases such as:
- "I'm not saying anything, but who knows where all that money comes from..."
- "Is it a coincidence that things go missing every time he shows up?"
- "Word is he's had trouble with the law"
can be considered defamatory if the average reader takes away a specific accusation. What counts is not the grammatical form but the message the reader receives. Passing on a rumour without checking it also means helping to spread it.
Satire has its own rules
Satire is a form of criticism that uses exaggeration, paradox and irony. By its nature it does not claim to report true facts: no one thinks a cartoon of a public figure flying on a donkey depicts a real event. That is why it enjoys wider latitude.
That latitude is not unlimited, however. For content to be recognisable as satire, certain conditions usually need to apply:
- its paradoxical nature must be obvious to the audience, who should not mistake it for news;
- there must be a link to the public conduct of the person targeted;
- it must not become a gratuitous attack on the person as such, their dignity or their private life.
A blatantly absurd photomontage of a politician over something they said easily counts as satire. A realistic image showing a private citizen in a compromising situation, with no sign of irony, does not.
Memes, deepfakes and ambiguous content
Content generated or altered with artificial intelligence complicates the picture. A realistic video in which someone appears to say things they never said can be presented as "just a joke", but if viewers cannot tell, the effect on reputation is identical to that of a false news story. The more believable the content, the less it can rely on the protection given to satire.
Likes, shares and comments
Even people who are not the original author can play a part:
| Action | General assessment |
|---|---|
| Liking | Generally not the same as reproducing the content, but context may matter |
| Sharing with an approving comment | May contribute to spreading the offence |
| Reposting the content as your own | You risk being held responsible like the author |
| Commenting with new accusations | Separate content, assessed on its own |
Before sharing something about an identifiable person, ask yourself whether you could prove what you are spreading.
When you are the target
If you believe content about you crosses the line, try answering these questions:
- Does the content attribute a specific fact or only express an opinion?
- Is the fact false, and can you prove it?
- Is the tone measured or insulting?
- Is it obvious that it is irony, or could a reader believe it?
- Does it concern your public activity or your private life?
The more answers point towards an attack, the more likely it is worth acting, starting with a flag to the platform.
In short
- The key distinction is between facts, which can be false, and opinions, which are subjective.
- Insinuations, rhetorical questions and "word is" can be as defamatory as a direct statement.
- Satire enjoys wide latitude only when the paradox is obvious and linked to public conduct.
- Realistic content, such as a deepfake, can hardly be called satire if viewers believe it.
- Sharing or amplifying an unverified accusation can expose even those who did not write it.