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

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

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.

Britain and Ireland

United Kingdom

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

Ireland

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

North America

United States

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

Canada

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

Australia and New Zealand

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.

South 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.

South-East and East Asia

Singapore

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

Malaysia

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

Philippines

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

Hong Kong

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

Africa

South Africa

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

Nigeria

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

Kenya

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

Ghana

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

Uganda

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

Zambia

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

The Caribbean

Jamaica

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

Trinidad and Tobago

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

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

Further reading

Links to official or reference sources. They open in a new tab.

Page checked in September 2026. The instruments cited can change: if in doubt, confirm with the official source given.

Locate this page in the site map

A question, a correction, a suggestion? Write to us.