诽谤是一种被定义为“暂时的”形式的陈述，除非在公共场合播出。在以前的法律中，应该有确凿的证据证明原告遭受了相当大的损害。但在当今时代，情况并非如此。诽谤也是如此(Thompson, 2013)。根据诽谤罪的条款，诽谤罪的内容应该由第三方阅读。新闻稿被认为是法律文件，社交媒体出版物被认为是这些出版物的一种形式。个人声誉可能会因这种影响而受损。这些社交媒体帖子被认为是国际性的。在社交媒体上发布的任何内容都可以在全球范围内自动浏览。这意味着它已经损害了国际声誉。这一过程涉及到许多复杂性(Thompson, 2013)。
为了说明这一点，BBC在2012年播出了一篇关于北威尔士虐童案的报道，涉及这位保守派政治人物。这一推测是由萨利·伯考(Sally Bercow)做出的，她显然在推特上发了一条关于麦克平勋爵的推文。这些指控没有得到证实，因为没有进行充分的事实核查。McAlpine勋爵从BBC公司获得了6位数的分红(Thompson, 2013)。从这个案例中，公关从业者应该意识到社交媒体和法律管辖的细微差别。因此，发布的任何内容都应该清晰，并确保所有涉众都被如实描述。如果内容已经过事实检查，则可以发布内容。未经适当审查的内容不应视为事实。这是2013年《诽谤诽谤法》的一个重要方面。
Slander is the statement which is defined as “transitory” form unless it is broadcasted in the public arena. In the previous laws there should be tangible proof that the plaintiffs had encountered considerable damage. This is not the case in the current times. The same goes for libel (Thompson, 2013). According to the libel clause of the defamatory content the libel should have been read by a third party. Press releases are considered to be the legal documents and the social media publications are considered to be a form of these publications. The individual reputation can be considered tarnished from this impact. The social media posts are considered to be international. Any content posted in the social media can be automatically viewed across the world. This means that it had caused international reputations damage. There are a number of complexities that are involved in this process (Thompson, 2013).
To elucidate with an example in 2012, BBC ran a story about a North Wales child abuse case that involved the Conservative political figure. This speculated was attributed by Sally Bercow who had apparently tweeted about Lord McAlpine. The allegations were not proven owing to the fact that there was no adequate fact checking. Lord McAlpine received a six figure payout form the BBC corporations (Thompson, 2013).From this case, the PR practitioners should be aware of the nuances of the social media and the jurisdictions of the law. Hence, any content that is posted should be clear and ensured that all the stakeholders are portrayed truthfully. If the content had been fact checked, the content can be posted. A content that is not properly vetted should not be considered as the fact. This is an important aspect of the libel defamatory act of 2013.