Public defamation: 7 examples (and counter-examples), how to qualify them, prove them and take action

Public defamation: sometimes you are the victim, sometimes you are the accused. In both cases, it all comes down to three things: qualifying the offending remarks, securing the evidence (screenshot, link, date of publication) and choosing the right means of action. On social networks, a comment or a press article accessible to the public can become a criminal offence if the allegation consists of the imputation of a specific fact prejudicial to the honour and reputation of a person who must be identified or identifiable. The law of 29 July 1881 also imposes a short limitation period of 3 months in most cases.

In this article, you will find 7 defamatory examples and 7 counter-examples, then how to lodge a complaint, obtain a retraction and who to target (author, publication director, host).

Let’s start with the definition and its criteria.

Public defamation: legal definition and criteria

In press law, defamation is an allegation or imputation of a specific fact that is prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the person targeted (natural person, legal entity or group). The stakes are high: it is not simply a matter of a point of view or an outrageous expression, but an imputed fact that can be verified, sometimes contested, and discussed (in particular via the plea of truth). It is this factual dimension that distinguishes it from criticism, opinion or public insult.

The term “public” does not refer to the tone, but to the scope of the comments and the way in which they are disseminated. As soon as the content is accessible to the public on a website, a press article, an online notice or freely accessible social networks, defamation is public. The difference between “public or private” depends on the reality of the access (private nature, restricted circle, group linked by a community of interests), and entails a more formalistic procedural regime, with short deadlines and potentially more complex liability depending on the medium.

A rapid and rigorous analysis avoids 2 common mistakes:

• under-reacting when the case is solid,
• or over-reacting by launching an inappropriate procedure.

The 4 conditions that occur in 90% of cases

In the majority of situations, qualification is based on 4 operational conditions.

The existence of a specific fact :

You are attributed a verifiable fact, not a mere opinion. Saying “he embezzled funds” or “she falsified a diploma” refers to a concrete event that can be dated and verified, and is therefore potentially defamatory.

Identifying a person :

The name is not compulsory if the reader clearly understands who is being targeted. A photo, job title (“the manager of shop X”), pseudonym, or mention of a company and position may be enough to make the person identifiable.

An attack on honour or reputation:

Accusations degrade a person’s social or professional image. Accusing someone of harassment, fraud, corruption, or endangerment directly damages reputation and credibility.

Publicity (communication to the public):

The comment is accessible to the public or a large audience (post visible to all, Google review, open forum, article). Conversely, a truly private message (text message, individual email, restricted group linked by a community of interests) is more likely to be non-public.

In actual cases, failure often comes from what’s missing: something too vague (“he’s dodgy”), an unidentifiable person, or a broadcast that is actually private. The analysis must therefore remain factual (what fact is attributed, to whom, where and with what level of accessibility).

14 cases commented on: 7 public defamations + 7 comments (opinion, insult, denigration)

7 examples of public defamation on the internet and social networks

The logic is identical in all seven cases: specific fact, identifiable person, attack on honour or reputation, publicity. The wording and context will then determine the strategy (withdrawal, right of reply, proceedings).

7 counter-examples: opinion, insult, denigration, criticism (and why)

The key point is to avoid overcharacterisation. Effective action begins with a sober legal diagnosis: what is really being alleged and how it was disseminated.

Frequent pitfalls: vague statements, innuendo, closed groups, unidentifiable individuals, etc.

Some formulations give the illusion of defamation but lack the decisive element.

• Allusions (“a well-known executive…”) fail if identification is not sufficiently certain.
• Insinuations (“I have been told that”, “it seems that”) do not guarantee impunity, but they sometimes give rise to debate about the exact meaning of the statement and whether it was deliberate.
• Vague attacks (“serious behaviour”) are often contested for lack of precise facts.

An impulsive response may aggravate the broadcast, reveal elements of a private life, or expose a person to a counter-attack (insult, defamation in return, damage to image). In a digital environment, the aim is rarely to “win an exchange”, but to regain control: freeze the evidence, choose the most effective lever and limit escalation.

Penalties for public defamation: fines, aggravated cases, sentencing (what you risk)

Basic penalty: fine of up to €12,000

Public defamation of an individual is an offence punishable by a fine of €12,000. This benchmark provides a framework for assessing the risk, particularly for authors who publish “in a fit of anger” in the belief that they are simply being critical.
However, a conviction is not automatic: the debate will focus on classification, proof of public nature, identification of the person targeted and the means of defence (in particular the good faith of the sender).

Increased penalties: €45,000 (public authority) and 1 year + €45,000 (discriminatory)

The regime may be more severe where the defamation is directed at a public authority by reason of its functions (e.g. elected representative, police officer, gendarme, magistrate, public official, etc.). In this case, the fine can be as high as €45,000.
The same logic applies when the comments are racist or discriminatory (origin, affiliation, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability). The law provides for stiffer penalties, with up to 1 year’s imprisonment and a €45,000 fine.

The table below summarises the applicable penalties, with a clear difference between public and private defamation.

Limitation period for public defamation: 3 months (and 1 year in the case of discrimination)

3-month period: starting point and interruptive acts

The time limit for public defamation is, in principle, 3 months from the date of publication, i.e. the date on which the information was first made available to the public. In practical terms, this means that the date, URL and a complete copy of the content (text, visuals, context, author profile) must be kept immediately, as evidence quickly becomes fragile.

Certain steps can interrupt the statute of limitations, but press law is formalistic: an ill-prepared, ill-qualified or ill-directed act can be ineffective. Lastly, deleting the content may limit the damage, but does not render admissible an action that is already time-barred. This is whythe first 72 hours are often decisive.

1 year in discriminatory cases: when it applies

Where the defamation is racist or discriminatory within the meaning of the law, the limitation period is extended to 1 year. It is not enough for the comment to be violent or humiliating; it must explicitly or sufficiently clearly target a protected criterion (e.g. origin, sex, specific religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc.).

The classic mistake is to think that the Internet automatically extends the time limits. It is not the medium that counts, but the nature of the comments.

The right reflex is therefore twofold: qualify the content objectively (words used, target, implications) and act quickly despite everything, because even with a longer deadline, digital evidence deteriorates quickly (modifications, deletions, account closures).

How do you prove public defamation?

Proof: public nature, identification, and imputation of fact

Before taking any steps, there are three points to bear in mind.

• Publicity: is the content communicated to the public (post visible to all, online opinion, open forum, article), or in a truly private setting (closed profile, restricted group)?
• Identification: is the person targeted recognisable, even without a name, by a photo, a job title, a pseudonym or the context?
• Accusation: what specific fact is alleged, and in what way is it an attack on honour or esteem?

Next, you need to establish complete and usable evidence. A post can be modified, a story deleted, an account closed. The classic errors are cropped captures without a URL, date, context or proof of public nature. In a court of law, these shortcomings are open to challenge and can convince a judge that the evidence is insufficient.

It is also essential that the precise terms used are brought to the court’s attention if they are to be condemned.

They cannot simply be reported, but must be specifically referred to.

Put together a simple file of documents: a complete capture with URL, a capture of the defamer’s profile, details of date and accessibility, context (source publication and comments) and, if useful, testimony. Where the stakes are high, a bailiff’s report (commissaire de justice) or an official report will secure the evidence.

Proving the truth can become a central issue, as it is one of the arguments that the author may try to put forward. If the publication is at risk of being removed or modified, GOLDWIN AVOCATS in Paris can help you secure the evidence and prepare an appropriate strategy.

Author’s defences: truth, good faith, public interest, factual basis

When a person is sued for defamation, they cannot simply say “that’s my opinion”. In practice, there are three defences to defamation.

1) The plea of truth: the author asserts that the imputed fact is true and attempts to prove it. This is subject to restrictions, especially if the allegation concerns private life. An accusation of “fraud” must be supported by concrete evidence, not by rumour. The procedural framework for proving the truth of the alleged or imputed facts is strict.

2) Good faith: even if the fact is not proven, the perpetrator may argue that he acted seriously and with the conviction that the imputed fact was true. The judge looks in particular at the aim pursued (to inform, to alert), the tone used (measured or aggressive), the absence of personal attacks and the existence of a factual basis. A post that warns of a health risk by citing documents will be better defended than a message that settles scores.

3) The factual basis: this is the ‘material’ on which the author relies (documents, exchanges, observations, testimonials). Saying “he harasses everyone” without any evidence is fragile, but reporting dated and verifiable facts changes the analysis.

For the victim, the challenge is to anticipate these lines of defence. For the accused perpetrator, it is necessary to check what can really be argued before a judge, with supporting evidence.

Who to sue for public defamation: author, publication director, host?

Who to sue depends on the medium.

• For a press website, the chain of responsibility often leads to the publication director.
• For a blog or website, the editorial manager may be involved.
• On a social network, the author of the comments is central, but identification and proof remain the priority.
• The web host is mainly involved in requests for removal and notifications, depending on the applicable mechanisms.

The aim is toavoid misdirected action. An error in targeting or an imprecise presentation of the roles undermines the approach.

Remedies for public defamation: withdrawal, right of reply, simple complaint, direct summons

The remedies available depend on your objective and the (often very short) deadline. To stop the publication, the quickest option is generally to withdraw the content (and, if necessary, de-index it), backed up by a structured request and then a formal notice.

To publicly re-establish your position, a right of reply may be appropriate, depending on the medium. To obtain a penalty or compensation, there are (criminal) legal channels, but they require solid evidence and an accurate qualification.

24-72 h: Preserving evidence, limiting dissemination, choosing a remedy

Within 24-72 hours, the order is simple: freeze the evidence, avoid retaliation, choose the lever.

Freeze: complete captures with URL, date/time, context, access conditions (public/private), and author profile.

Avoid any escalation: no invective, no “hot” threats, no sensitive information.

If a public response is necessary, remain factual. Indicate that the content is being contested and that steps are being taken, without making it a criminal offence.

How to lodge a complaint for public defamation

An effective complaint must include a precise description of what was said (exact text), the medium, the URL, the date, the conditions of access and the description used.

In press law, formalism is essential: poor wording, mischaracterisation or incomplete evidence can compromise the action. The complaint must correspond to your objective (withdrawal, sanction, reparation), the risk of escalation and the statute of limitations.

Forming a civil party and bringing a civil action: when it makes sense

Bringing a civil action before a criminal court is appropriate when the case is robust, and the objective includes compensation. It involves anticipating the means of defence (truth, good faith, statute of limitations) and factoring in costs and timing. Civil action before the criminal courts can also be envisaged to obtain compensation or put an end to a disturbance, but it must be coordinated with the 1881 Act to avoid ineffective proceedings.

You have been accused of public defamation: how do you defend yourself?

Start by securing your position, don’t delete in a panic and don’t restart the online discussion. Immediately keep a complete copy of the exchanges (post, comments, URL, date, context) and collect your sources.

Then choose a line of defence that is consistent with the case:

• re-characterisation if the criteria are not met
• exception of truth if you can prove the facts,
• or good faith if you have a factual basis and a measured expression.

Finally, check that the procedure and the time limits are in order, because one irregularity may be enough to stop the action.

Whether you are the victim of public defamation or have been wrongly accused, consult GOLDWIN AVOCATS in Paris quickly to secure evidence, qualify the situation and implement the most effective strategy.