Civil liability for defamation on social media

The article addresses issues of civil liability for defamation in the domestic context. It highlights that defamation, as a violation of an individual’s personal non-property rights-specifically concerning honor, dignity, and privacy-remains a problematic area of legal regulation. This is attributed to the absence of specific “defamation law” provisions in national legislation; the rapid development of information and communication technologies and the speed at which information is disseminated; changes in communication styles within the digital environment; and the blurred criteria for distinguishing between evaluative judgments and harmful information that can cause reputational damage to specific individuals or legal entities. Special attention in the current conditions is paid to defamation on social media. The most common instances of violations of honor and dignity on social networks occur through publications on platforms such as X (Twitter), Telegram, and Facebook. The article examines the application of existing legal norms in cases of defamation amid digital democratization and general informational freedom. The article also notes that, in the context of European legal culture, defamation is viewed as one of the mechanisms for recognizing the value of the individual. It is emphasized that Ukraine, as a modern democratic state, possesses a range of legal tools for protecting personal non-property rights, which may be applied in cases of defamation. In particular, this refers to civil liability for the dissemination of information that has a damaging effect on a person’s honor, dignity, and reputation. An analysis of the current national legislation and judicial practice demonstrates that they are developing within the framework of the contemporary legal reality and are comparable to the legal realities of modern democratic states. However, several challenges exist in the realm of civil liability for defamation on social media in the context of Ukraine’s legal landscape. These include the legal uncertainty that defamation cases present compared to those involving traditional media; user anonymity; the burden of proof resting on the claimant; the informal and imprecise style of information being shared; and the dynamic, often uncritical spread of content.