Media Law for the Real World: Defamation Law, Explained
How courts balance free speech and reputation — and what a high-profile celebrity trial shows about credibility, falsity, and the court of public opinion.
What is Defamation?
Defamation isn’t really a First Amendment issue — except that it involves speech.
Unlike most First Amendment questions, this isn’t government vs. the people. Defamation is a tort — people vs. people.
Anyone can be held accountable for defamation. This is where social media, journalism, influencers, politics, and cancel culture all collide.
Defamation law exists to balance two competing values: protecting reputation and protecting the First Amendment right to free speech.
Burden of Proof
In a defamation case, the plaintiff (the person claiming they were defamed) has to prove every single element of the claim.
The defendant only has to disprove one.
The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff.
The Elements of Defamation (in plain English)
To win a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
Statement of fact
Opinions are not actionable.
Publication
The statement must be communicated to a third party. One-on-one insults don’t count.
Identification
The statement must be about the plaintiff or clearly imply them.
Reputational harm
The statement must actually damage the plaintiff’s reputation.
Falsity
The statement must be false. Substantial truth is enough, meaning minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity.
Fault
The defendant is responsible for making or publishing the statement.
Public Figures vs. Private Figures
This is where defamation law takes a turn.
If you are a public figure, you must prove actual malice, meaning that the defendant acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. In more simple words — the defendant knew the statement was false or seriously doubted its truth but said or published it anyway.
This is a very high bar to achieve.
If you are a private figure, you only need to prove negligence, meaning the defendant had a duty of care, breached that duty of care, harm resulted, and the breach was the proximate cause of that harm.
Public figures trade privacy and reputational protection for influence. Private individuals don’t.
The Libel-Proof Plaintiff
In some rare cases, someone’s reputation is already so damaged that the law assumes it cannot be meaningfully damaged further. In this situation, they cannot succeed in a defamation lawsuit.
This is called a libel-proof plaintiff. It’s uncommon, but it does exist.
Real-World Case Study: Depp v. Heard
There is a common misconception about Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard.
This was not a domestic violence trial. It was a defamation case. The jury was not asked to decide whether abuse occurred in a criminal sense, but they did have to determine if abuse occurred in order to meet the legal standard for defamation.
Amber Heard wrote an op-ed (which was lawyer-approved) containing three key statements:
“I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”
“Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”
“I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
She never named Johnny Depp. She didn’t have to.
Depp’s legal team argued (and the jury agreed) that context clues allowed readers to identify him, satisfying the identification element.
Why the Case Turned on Falsity
By the time this case reached trial, most elements were not seriously in dispute. The real battle was falsity.
If Depp could prove that Heard’s claims were false, he could win the case.
His team pursued a deliberate strategy:
If they could convince the jury that Amber Heard was lying about one material fact, they could undermine her credibility entirely.
That’s where the Milani makeup palette came in.
Heard presented a correcting kit she claimed to have used to cover bruises during the time period she was with Depp.
Milani publicly stated that the product did not exist at the time she was claiming to have used it.
Legally, this mattered because if she was willing to misrepresent a fact that is verifiable, the jury could question her credibility on disputed facts.
It’s also important to note that juries are made up of humans. Credibility can be lost in seconds, and once trust is broken, it’s extremely difficult to rebuild.
Both sides relied heavily on expert testimony, including psychological evaluations, in an effort to undermine the other’s credibility.
The Court of Public Opinion
Long before the verdict, this case was tried on social media through TikToks, memes, commentary, and algorithms.
This case left the world with one major takeaway: Defamation law exists in a courtroom, but reputations live online.
When a case becomes a cultural event, it raises serious questions about whether a fair trial is even possible.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the danger of media-driven trials — a concern famously addressed in Sheppard v. Maxwell.
During the trial, social media was flooded with content supporting Depp, including the viral hashtag #JusticeForJohnny. A well-known actor had already built a public relationship with audiences, and many viewers were unwilling to accept the possibility that the allegations could potentially be accurate.