Where slander ends and legality begins: why online forums and journalists can publish damaging content with little accountability
There is a common assumption that if something is deeply unfair, harmful or entirely untrue, there must be a legal route to stop it. The reality is far less reassuring. In the UK, reputation is protected in theory, but the law draws its boundaries in a way that leaves most forms of online bullying, speculation and irresponsible journalism technically within the rules. It feels counterintuitive that a website like Tattle can host thousands of unchecked claims about public figures, or that journalists can destroy reputations with a few lines of suggestive phrasing, yet both can remain entirely legal. The explanation is not that the behaviour is harmless, but that the law simply was not built for the digital age.
This is where the distinction between slander, libel, opinion and gossip becomes more than semantics. It is the difference between something that is morally outrageous and something that is legally actionable, and those two categories rarely match.
What actually counts as defamation in the UK
Defamation law in the UK covers two things: libel, which is written, and slander, which is spoken. For something to be defamation, three conditions must be met.
The allegation must cause or be likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. This was tightened by the Defamation Act 2013, which raised the threshold significantly.
It must be presented as fact, not as opinion. A statement framed as speculation or personal impression is far harder to challenge.
It must be false or impossible to prove as substantially true.
The phrase substantially true is key. A journalist does not need absolute proof. They need enough information to argue that their reporting was reasonable. This is why so many damaging articles never meet the legal threshold for libel, especially if the wording is careful and couched in language like reportedly, sources suggest, it is claimed or according to court documents.
The law does not care whether an article ruins your month. It cares whether it meets a technical definition of serious harm that can be proven in court.
Why sites like Tattle remain legal
Forums like Tattle sit in an awkward intersection between free speech, hosting rules and anonymity. The legality of Tattle is not a reflection of the quality or decency of its content. It is simply the result of three structural protections.
One, the platform itself is not the publisher of the content.
UK and EU law treat hosts as intermediaries. They are not legally liable for posts unless they refuse to remove clearly unlawful content after being notified. Most gossip on Tattle, however vile, does not meet the definition of unlawful speech.
Two, users frame their comments as opinion rather than fact.
Opinion is extremely difficult to challenge legally, even when the opinion is based on absolute nonsense.
Three, anonymity makes accountability almost impossible.
There is no routine mechanism to force disclosure of user identities unless a criminal offence has occurred. Even then, the bar is high.
In other words, most of what is posted on Tattle is protected through legal gaps rather than legal endorsement. It exists because the reputation of a private individual is not prioritised in digital law until the harm is extreme enough to be measurable, provable and directly attributable to a named person.
Why journalists often face little accountability
The idea that journalism is regulated is one of the great misconceptions. Regulation exists, but penalties are rare. A journalist can publish damaging claims because:
• They rely on careful phrasing to avoid direct liability.
• Outlets hide behind public interest, even when the connection to public interest is tenuous.
• Retractions arrive long after the reputational damage has already spread.
• IPSO and other regulators have no meaningful power to award compensation.
Most people do not realise how small the consequences are for an outlet that gets something wrong. A correction, placed at the bottom of a webpage no one will see, often completes the regulatory requirement. Meanwhile, the original story has been replicated across social media and cached by search engines.
The lack of accountability is not an oversight. It is the byproduct of a system designed decades before social media turned misreporting into a public spectacle. Journalism was built on the assumption that reputational harm was slow burning and local, not viral and global.
When journalists fabricate, and the impossible task of proving a negative
In crisis PR, one of the most surreal patterns I see is how easily a journalist can publish something devastating without presenting any meaningful evidence. It happens far more often than the public assumes. I have worked with clients who opened their phones to find front page accusations that had never been put to them, allegations supported by nothing more than a vague line about insiders or unnamed sources. Some of these claims were so far removed from any version of reality that the first hour of every crisis meeting becomes a scramble to gather proof that something did not happen.
There is nothing rational about trying to prove a negative. Yet that is the position many public figures find themselves in. A journalist writes a sentence, readers assume there is evidence behind it, and my client is left creating documentation from scratch to show that the entire premise is fabricated. It is reputational damage delivered in moments, and an exoneration process that can take months, sometimes years.
What makes this more troubling is that the system allows it. A journalist can publish strong insinuation without presenting their evidence upfront and still remain inside legal boundaries. They can rely on private notes, off-the-record whispers or anonymous contributors and never reveal any of it unless challenged in court, which most individuals cannot afford to pursue. Accountability is almost theoretical. The burden of proof sits with the person trying to undo the damage, not the person who created it.
It is a structural issue, not a series of isolated scandals. When you work in crisis PR, you see the same pattern repeatedly. A journalist publishes a dramatic narrative because drama performs well online, evidence is thin or selectively interpreted, and the subject of the article is left explaining themselves to friends, employers and the public for something that simply never occurred. Meanwhile, even a successful correction struggles to reach the audience that consumed the original story.
This is why so many public figures describe the press as more frightening than online forums. A gossip post might sting, but a journalist with a platform can create a permanent search result that follows someone for the rest of their life, even when the article is baseless. The emotional toll is enormous. The professional toll can be irreversible.
Where slander ends and bullying begins
Much of what people experience as harassment or character assassination is simply not covered by defamation law. A journalist can ruin your week with a tone of implication rather than a direct accusation. A forum user can hint, speculate or discuss rumours without ever crossing into factual territory. The law is concerned with precise statements, not the impression created.
This is why so many public figures describe online hostility as relentless yet legally untouchable. The harm is emotional, professional and social, but the behaviours themselves fall short of unlawful. The gap between what is wrong and what is illegal is often vast.
What options exist if the behaviour is damaging but not unlawful
This is the part people often do not realise: legality and accountability are separate concepts.
You may not have a defamation claim, but you can still protect yourself.
Reputation repair strategies, which include correcting search results, managing narratives and increasing the visibility of factual information.
Professional statements, which reframe the situation without escalating it.
Documentation, which becomes essential if patterns escalate into harassment.
Platform reporting, which is inconsistent but sometimes successful for impersonation, doxxing or targeted abuse.
Direct legal letters, not to claim damages, but to require removal of specific content that crosses a line.
Public transparency, which sometimes becomes necessary when the private damage is unsustainable.
None of these solve the structural problem, but they mitigate personal harm and shift control back to the individual.
The sad truth of it all
The law is slow, the internet is fast, and reputations now sit at the mercy of people who face no real consequences for what they publish. Journalists can lean on loopholes. Forums can hide behind hosting protection. Commenters can stay anonymous forever. And individuals who are targeted have to build their own safety nets because the legal framework has not kept up.
Understanding where the legal boundary sits is not uplifting, but it is empowering. Once you know what the law will and will not protect you from, you can build strategies that do not rely on a system that was never designed for this level of public exposure.