Skip to main content
Legal Advice Centre

Breadcrumb

  1. Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre
  2. Our legal blog
  3. 2026 Blogs
  4. items

Can You Get in Trouble for What You Say Online?

Online posts can have consequences far beyond the screen. Posting online from your bedroom may feel safe and anonymous, yet the law considers online to be a public space, and applies to you as if you were out in the world.

Published:

There are many types of online content that can get you in trouble in real life, this blog will focus on online defamation. We will explore this through two case studies.

The Wagatha Christie case

You may have heard the term ‘Wagatha Christie’ in the news over the last few years. British celebrity Coleen Rooney had suspicions that someone in her inner circle was leaking private information about her to the media.

She undertook her own investigation to figure out the identity of the leaker, uploading select information to a private story, which she made accessible to an increasingly smaller audience. She then waited to see what information ended up with the media, eventually leading her to suspect fellow celebrity, Rebekah Vardy.

She then posted some fake stories which only Vardy’s account could see, to test her theory. Soon after posting, the fake information from the stories was mentioned in articles by The Sun, confirming Rooney’s suspicions.

Rooney then publicly exposed Vardy’s account as the leaker. She tweeted about her suspicions and what had happened and then said “it’s… Rebekah Vardy’s account”.

Vardy then sued Rooney for libel due to apparent reputational harm suffered. Rooney defended herself, stating that her claim was the truth and in the public interest.

Vardy lost the case as the judge deemed Rooney’s accusatory posts to be “substantially true”. Vardy was also ordered to pay 90% of Rooney’s legal costs, at over £1.4 million, despite appealing against the costs decision, and the amount.

Though Rooney won, and her initial budget for legal costs of the case was around £580,000, the total legal costs ended up being over £1.8million. Highlighting an issue with defamation cases, that they can be incredibly expensive.

False accusations and death threats – University Challenge

Melika Gorgianeh, a Muslim woman and student at Christ Church College, Oxford University, appeared on the BBC quiz show, University Challenge, in November 2023. During their televised episode, her team’s mascot was a blue octopus stuffed animal, and Gorgianeh herself was dressed in a jacket which was navy, orange, pink and green.

Baroness Jacqueline Foster, a member of the House of Lords, claimed on X that Gorgianeh was wearing the colours of the Palestinian flag (which are black, white, green and red). She also held Gorgianeh responsible for the mascot selection and went on to describe it as one of the most “disgusting and anti-Semitic symbols”. Nazi posters historically used octopi to represent Jewish people.

She demanded Gorgianeh be “expelled” from her university and “arrested”, tagging the University of Oxford, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the BBC, and the national communications regulator Ofcom, in her post.

Both of her claims were proven false. Gorgianeh’s jacket did not contain the colours of the Palestinian flag, and the mascot was “one of many” chosen by the team and represented the entire team of four as it was “one of their favourite animals”. It was also clarified that the episode was filmed in March 2023, before the 7 October 2023 attack.

Gorgianeh stated that she received death threats due to Foster’s claims, and was scared to leave her house, causing her mental health to deteriorate. Her subsequent claim for libel and harassment against Baroness Foster settled with substantial damages, as well as a published retraction and apology from Baroness Foster.

Foster stated on X that she made “a grave mistake in making those posts and…should not have done so," she added that her statements were “inaccurate” and “unfounded,” she did not however, refer to specific allegations she made. She also wrote a private letter of apology to Gorgianeh, once again acknowledging that her statements were “completely untrue” and paid her “substantial damages and costs”.

So, what is defamation according to the law?

Defamation is the act of making false statements about individuals or businesses to a third party, which have the potential to cause serious harm to their reputation.

Defamatory statements are not limited to written text. There are two main forms of defamation – libel and slander.

Libel refers to permanent or recorded forms of media such as videos, emails and social media posts. Even if this media isn’t truly permanent, it is considered libel due to how easy it is to preserve and share.

Even temporary posts like stories, on apps such as Instagram and Snapchat, which disappear after 24 hours, can be considered libel because of how easy it is to preserve and share them.

Slander refers to temporary communication such as spoken words.

What makes a statement defamatory?

To qualify as defamation, the false statement must:

  1. Be capable of causing an ordinary person to think worse of the subject
  2. Have been presented as fact
  3. Have clearly identified its subject (the person or business being defamed)
  4. Have been made to or overheard by a third party - this can include publishing on social media even if your audience is small
  5. Have been likely to have caused serious harm to the subject’s reputation (since the Defamation Act 2013 (the Act))

There is a statutory defence of truth. This means that if the Defendant can show that the statement is ‘substantially true’, as seen in the Wagatha Christie case, then they may have a defence.

There is also a defence known as the ‘honest opinion’ defence.  Section 3 of the Act provides a defence if the statement complained of: 

  • was an opinion;
  • indicated the basis of the opinion, whether in general or specific terms; and
  • was an opinion which could have been held by an honest person on the basis of any fact which existed at the time the statement was published, or anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

Sections 4 – 7 of the Act offer further defences, namely: public interest, operators of websites, peer-reviewed statements and protection by privilege.

Conclusion - Staying Out of Trouble Online

Posts online regarding individuals or businesses that may cause reputational harm can be considered defamatory and legal action can be taken against the maker of the statement.

Defamatory statements are not simply controversial – they can cause extensive consequences for those involved. The cases explored here showed us that they can seriously harm someone’s reputation and cause them to suffer financial loss and/or distress.

By Wissam Djamai, Student Blog Writer at QMLAC and LLB Law Student. 

This blog is for information only and does not constitute legal advice on any matter. While we always aim to ensure that information is correct at the date of posting, the legal position can change, and the blogs will not ordinarily be updated to reflect any subsequent relevant changes. Anyone seeking legal advice on the subject matter should contact a specialist legal representative

Sources & Further Information

 

 

 

Back to top