Slander vs. Gossip

People are spreading rumors about you at work, and it's starting to affect your job. Or, you shared what seemed like a joke on social media, but now the target is accusing you of trashing their reputation. Are you dealing with personal drama, or a potential defamation case?

The answer depends on the specifics of your situation. But it's important to understand that you can commit defamation even if you didn't deliberately lie, and even if you were only repeating something you heard. A person can be held legally responsible for harming someone's reputation if they share malicious gossip, or spread rumors that turn out to be false.

Defamation (Usually) Doesn't Require Bad Intentions

Defamation doesn't have to be a deliberate attempt to hurt someone. The key elements of a defamation claim include proving that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff, and that this statement hurt the plaintiff's reputation.

As we'll discuss below, public figures must meet a high legal standard to win a defamation case. But, if the plaintiff is a private citizen, they don't have to prove nearly as much about what the defendant knew, or why they made the false statement. Each state has its own rules, but the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it can be enough to show that the defendant acted negligently. (Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).)

Negligence is when a person hurts someone by being more careless than a reasonable person would have been in the same situation. For example, in Ohio, a person can be liable for defamation if they lacked "reasonable grounds" for believing that a false and harmful statement was true. (Lopez v. Thomas, 2014-Ohio-2513 (Ct. App.).) And, in Virginia, a person can be liable for defamation if they didn't try to confirm the facts underlying a false and harmful statement. (Hyland v. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., 277 Va. 40, 46, 670 S.E.2d 746, 750 (2009).)

So, even a statement or social media post that seemed unimportant to the person who made it could be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. If the case is decided using a negligence standard, then "I wasn't taking it seriously" is unlikely to be an effective defense. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to factual statements about a person that aren't true. The First Amendment protects people's right to make jokes and express opinions about each other—even if those statements are insulting or mean-spirited.

Who's a "Public Figure" in a Defamation Case?

As we mentioned above, public figures have to meet a higher standard to win a defamation case. They can't win just by showing the defendant negligently made a false statement. Instead, they have to show that the defendant either knew that the statement was false, or was recklessly uninterested in whether the statement was true or not. This is called the "actual malice" standard.

Courts started dividing defamation plaintiffs into "public figures" and "private figures" decades ago, before the internet and social media started blurring the line between the two categories. But courts have long recognized that some people fall somewhere in between. That's why defamation law also uses the concept of "limited-purpose" public figures.

A "limited-purpose" public figure isn't famous or widely influential, but has voluntarily gotten involved in a public issue or controversy. Limited-purpose public figures can sue for defamation using a negligence standard, but only if the statements are about their private lives. The higher "actual malice" standard applies if the allegedly defamatory statements are related to the person's involvement in a public issue. For example:

• A Tennessee court found that a man who customized jet skis was a limited-purpose public figure. Because he'd sought publicity for his work, and had posted about it on an online message board, he was treated as a public figure when it came to his business. Therefore, when he sued people for comments they made about his jet skis, he had to prove that the defendants had either deliberately lied, or made the statements without caring if they were true or not. (Hibdon v. Grabowski, 195 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).)
• A federal court in New York found that a jazz musician who was well-known in his field, and had sought publicity for his work, was a limited-purpose public figure. But it ruled that he was only a public figure when it came to his music. He was treated as a private figure when it came to allegedly defamatory statements about his personal life. (Coleman v. Grand, 523 F. Supp. 3d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2021).)

You Can Defame Someone By Repeating False Statements

You can be legally responsible for spreading a false statement even if you aren't the one who made it up. Repeating something, or reposting it on social media, could make you liable if the other elements of defamation are met.

In addition, you could be liable for defamation even if you only repeat a defamatory statement to a few people. The question is whether the harm to the subject of the rumor was reasonably foreseeable, not how many people heard the statement.

For example, a federal court in Illinois ruled that a college tennis player could be liable for defamation because he spread a rumor about his former coach. The defendant told his mother and his girlfriend that the coach had had a sexual relationship with another player. His girlfriend was best friends with the player mentioned in the rumor, and his mother had a history of contacting the school about issues her son brought to her attention. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should have foreseen that his statement would get back to students and administrators at his school.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that he was just repeating something he had heard. It pointed out that, even if he was just passing along a rumor, he was still responsible for making a false statement that he knew would probably hurt someone's reputation. (The court also doubted that the defendant was telling the truth, underlining the importance of honesty and credibility in legal disputes.) (Holzgrafe v. Lozier, No. 18-CV-3077, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83807 (C.D. Ill. May 2, 2025).)

Social media makes it easier than it's ever been to amplify unverified rumors that could damage a person's reputation. So if you're active on social media—or concerned about what people are saying about you online—you should understand the legal rules for online defamation.

What Else You Need to Know About Defamation Law

If you think you've been defamed, or if someone has accused you of lying about them, make sure you know the basics of defamation law.

These cases can be complicated, and often involve legal arguments that don't come up in many civil lawsuits—for example, people accused of defamation often have very strong defenses based on the First Amendment. So, you may benefit from consulting with an attorney who specializes in this area. The right attorney should be able to evaluate your case and help you decide the best way to handle your situation.