Speech and online harassment

One distinction decides nearly every case: whether the statement was an opinion or an assertion of fact.

Illustration: Speech and online harassment

Appear on this page

Get our daily news watch

Why this page is on AffectionPlus

People meet by writing now: an ad, a profile, private messages, forum comments, sometimes a published piece. Free speech decides what you are allowed to write about another member or about a site, and where the line falls for insult, defamation and harassment.

It is also the rule that governs moderation. A service like Affection.org has to take some content down within set deadlines, is not allowed to take other content down, and must be able to justify each decision. Where that line sits matters as much to the member as to the site.

The line that decides almost everything

An opinion — this restaurant is unpleasant — attracts very broad protection, even when bluntly expressed. An assertion of fact — the owner stole from me — is protected only if it is true or carefully substantiated. Nearly every dispute is fought on that boundary, and the practical rule that follows works everywhere: criticise the service, not the person, and assert only what you can prove.

Three very different regimes

Some countries treat damage to reputation as a criminal offence, with complaints, investigations and in a few places imprisonment. Others have made it a purely civil matter, resolved through damages and orders to remove. A third group protects expression so broadly that claims rarely succeed, and penalises proceedings brought to silence critics. The same message can therefore be unremarkable in one country and criminally risky in another.

On online harassment, systems are converging

A friend rests a reassuring hand on the shoulder of a shaken young man, his phone face down on his knee
Almost everywhere, the law now targets repeated online harassment.

Almost everywhere now covered: repeated harassment, including where it comes from a group and each participant posts only once; sharing intimate images without consent, even where the recording was consensual; threatening to share them; digital impersonation; and publishing someone's personal details to expose them.

Platforms are faster than courts

Large regulatory blocs have imposed concrete duties on platforms: accessible reporting, reasoned decisions on removal, an internal appeal, and short deadlines for the most serious content. Several countries have created authorities that can order removal themselves. In practice the effective order is almost always the same: report first, litigate second.

Evidence first, and quickly

Capture the full page with the address and date, note the context and any witnesses, and save everything before anything is deleted. Many systems impose very short deadlines — sometimes three months from publication or from identifying the author. Do not spend that period on informal exchanges, and remember that your own replies become part of the file too.

The law country by country

The legal framework, the procedure, the time limits and the costs differ from one country to another. Each country below has a detailed page: governing texts, key facts, the actual procedure, costs, where to go and the traps to avoid.

Select a country to open its detailed page.

European framework

European Union

The Digital Services Act does not harmonise what you may say; it dictates how platforms must handle what is reported — and it forbids arbitrary removal.

Europe

Ireland

Defamation remains claimant-friendly, though reform is underway, and harmful online communications were criminalised in 2020.

United Kingdom

A serious-harm threshold for defamation, a one-year limitation period, and a new suite of online safety duties.

Western Africa

Ghana

Criminal libel was abolished in 2001, leaving civil defamation alongside the Cybersecurity Act 2020.

Nigeria

The Cybercrimes Act 2015, amended in 2024, covers cyberstalking and online harassment, and defamation exists both as a crime and as a civil claim.

Eastern Africa

Kenya

The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018 criminalises cyberharassment and false publications, while the High Court decriminalised defamation in 2017.

Uganda

The Computer Misuse Act, amended in 2022, criminalises offensive communication, though the courts struck down parts of it.

Zambia

Cyber harassment and the distribution of intimate images are offences, and criminal defamation of the President was repealed in 2022.

Southern Africa

South Africa

Freedom of expression has constitutional protection and precisely defined exclusions. An offensive post is not automatically a criminal threat.

Southern Asia

India

Criminal defamation survives alongside civil claims, and platform rules impose fast takedown timelines.

Pakistan

Online harassment and image abuse are criminalised, but defamation law can cut both ways.

Eastern Asia

Hong Kong

Defamation on the English model, a specific doxxing offence since 2021, and intimate image offences added the same year.

South-eastern Asia

Malaysia

Malaysia punishes offensive online communications under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, alongside criminal defamation in the Penal Code and a 2023 anti-stalking amendment.

Philippines

In the Philippines, libel committed online is punished more heavily than in print under the 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Act, while voyeurism and gender-based online harassment have their own statutes.

Singapore

POFMA correction directions, a fast harassment court, and criminal defamation alongside civil claims.

Northern America

Canada

Defamation is a civil matter with a reversed burden on falsity, and anti-SLAPP laws protect public interest speech in some provinces.

United States

The strongest speech protections in the world, a high bar for defamation, and broad platform immunity under section 230.

Caribbean

Jamaica

The Cybercrimes Act covers malicious online communications, and the Defamation Act 2013 removed criminal libel.

Trinidad and Tobago

The Libel and Defamation Act sits alongside cybercrime provisions on online harassment and intimate-image distribution.

Oceania

Australia

A serious harm threshold since 2021, a powerful eSafety Commissioner, and courts that have held page owners liable for comments.

New Zealand

The Harmful Digital Communications Act gives ordinary people a fast, low-cost route to removal.

This topic is also covered for French-speaking countries · German-speaking countries.

Sources

  1. Guide sur l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme – Liberté d'expression — European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2026 (in French)
  2. Directive (UE) 2024/1069 du 11 avril 2024 sur la protection des personnes qui participent au débat public contre les procédures judiciaires abusives — eur-lex.europa.eu, 2024 (in French)
  3. Directive (UE) 2024/1385 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 14 mai 2024 sur la lutte contre la violence à l'égard des femmes et la violence domestique — eur-lex.europa.eu, 2024 (in French)
  4. Digital Services Act: Questions and Answers — European Commission, accessed 2026
  5. Règlement (UE) 2022/2065 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 19 octobre 2022 (règlement sur les services numériques) — eur-lex.europa.eu, 2022 (in French)

Official or institutional documents this page relies on, consulted on 12 October 2026. Links open in a new tab.

Content updated in . The instruments cited can change: if in doubt, confirm with the official source given.

Text written with the help of AI, under the editorial responsibility of CAPIT; human reviews are occasional (method and sources: About). This content does not replace medical or legal advice. Spotted an error? Write to us.

Locate this page in the site map