Social Media Defamation | Online Bullying Not Guilty

The client had experienced repeated bullying years earlier. 

Feeling that prior institutional responses had failed, the client decided to share the experience publicly.

The post identified individuals by name and described multiple incidents in detail. As the content circulated widely, it eventually reached the people named. 

They then issued a complaint alleging reputational harm, emotional distress, and a potential violation of electronically communicated harassment provisions under New York law. 

Although New York rarely converts defamation complaints into criminal charges, police often review such reports to determine whether the communication constitutes a prohibited pattern of electronic conduct.

he attorney analyzed whether the posts could be interpreted as factual assertions, opinion, or privileged personal narratives. 

Under New York civil defamation principles, liability requires falsity, publication, fault, and damages. 

For any criminal exposure, New York Penal Law §240.30 requires proof of intent to harass or alarm, repeated conduct, or threatening elements. 

The attorney reviewed archived messages, prior reports, and witnesses to determine whether the client’s speech fell within protected categories or posed genuine legal risk.

The attorney emphasized that the client had no history of harassment, no involvement in prior disputes, and no pattern of targeting the individuals beyond a single post.

Under New York law, the absence of repeated conduct or threatening intent undermines any claim that the communication violates §240.30. 

This helped show that the client’s actions stemmed from emotional expression rather than an intent to intimidate or harm.

Multiple individuals who were aware of the past incidents provided statements confirming the essential truth of what the client had posted. 

Because truth or substantial truth is a complete defense to civil defamation in New York, validating the factual basis of the narrative became central to the defense. 

These statements also supported the argument that the client’s communication did not contain knowingly false assertions a critical factor in avoiding civil liability.

The attorney compiled archived texts, informal written accounts, and other materials from the time of the events. 

These supported the accuracy of the client’s description and confirmed that the statements were grounded in lived experience. 

Under New York law, truthful or substantially truthful speech even when critical or painful cannot form the basis of defamation, nor does it satisfy the elements of harassment unless accompanied by malicious or repeated behavior.

The prosecution determined that:

The client’s statements were substantially accurate.

There was no evidence of threatening intent or repeated harassment.

The post reflected protected personal expression and opinion.

New York’s narrow criminal statutes do not penalize isolated online disclosures absent additional unlawful conduct.

Because New York does not maintain a broad criminal defamation statute, the case lacked a viable criminal theory. As a result, authorities declined to bring charges.

The client expressed relief after the dismissal. 

The case highlights an important reality: while online statements can lead to complaints, New York carefully distinguishes protected speech from conduct that meets statutory thresholds for criminal harassment. 

Truthfulness, context, and intent remain decisive in determining exposure.