I. Introduction

In the Philippines, a Facebook post can become the basis of a criminal case for cyber libel when it publicly imputes a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance that tends to dishonor, discredit, or cause contempt against an identifiable person. The risk does not fall only on the original author. A person who shares, reposts, republishes, amplifies, or helps spread a defamatory Facebook post may also face legal exposure depending on the facts.

The central issue is this: Can a person be held criminally liable for aiding or abetting cyber libel merely by sharing a defamatory Facebook post?

The answer is nuanced. Under Philippine law, cyber libel is punished under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which adopted libel under the Revised Penal Code and increased the penalty when committed through a computer system or similar means. The Act also contains a provision penalizing those who aid or abet cybercrime offenses. However, liability for sharing a defamatory post is not automatic. Courts must still examine whether the elements of libel are present, whether the person acted with the required mental state, and whether the act of sharing amounts to punishable participation rather than mere passive online activity.

II. Legal Basis of Cyber Libel in the Philippines

Cyber libel is grounded mainly on two laws:

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines libel; and
Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which penalizes libel committed through a computer system or similar means.

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, libel becomes cyber libel when committed through information and communications technology, such as Facebook, X, blogs, websites, messaging platforms, or other online platforms.

A Facebook post is especially significant because it is often public, rapidly shareable, searchable, screenshot-friendly, and capable of reaching audiences far beyond the original poster’s immediate circle.

III. Elements of Cyber Libel

For a person to be liable for cyber libel, the prosecution generally needs to establish the following:

1. There was an imputation

The statement must attribute something negative to another person. The imputation may involve a crime, immoral conduct, dishonorable behavior, professional incompetence, corruption, dishonesty, abuse, sexual misconduct, fraud, or another circumstance that tends to damage reputation.

Examples include accusing someone online of being a thief, scammer, corrupt official, adulterer, sexual predator, drug user, fake professional, or dishonest businessperson.

2. The imputation was defamatory

The statement must tend to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, ridicule, or reputational harm. The test is not limited to whether the target subjectively felt offended. The issue is whether the words are defamatory in their ordinary meaning, context, and effect.

Even insinuations, blind items, sarcastic statements, memes, captions, hashtags, or edited images may be defamatory if they convey a damaging meaning.

3. The person defamed was identifiable

The victim does not always need to be named. A person may be identifiable through photos, initials, position, nickname, workplace, address, family relation, screenshots, tags, or contextual clues.

For example, a post saying “the treasurer of Barangay X stole funds” may identify a person even without naming them if there is only one treasurer known to the community.

4. There was publication

Publication means communication of the defamatory matter to a third person. On Facebook, publication may occur when a defamatory post is made visible to others, whether publicly, to friends, to a group, or to a page audience.

Sharing, reposting, commenting with republication, tagging others, or uploading screenshots can also create a new act of publication.

5. There was malice

In Philippine libel law, malice may be presumed from the defamatory nature of the publication. However, this presumption may be defeated by privileged communication, fair comment, truth, good motives, justifiable ends, or other defenses.

For public officers, public figures, or matters of public concern, constitutional free speech principles may require a more careful analysis of whether the statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth.

6. The act was committed through a computer system or similar means

Because Facebook operates through computer systems and internet-based communication, defamatory statements posted or shared there may fall within cyber libel if the other elements are present.

IV. What Does “Aiding or Abetting” Mean in Cyber Libel?

The Cybercrime Prevention Act penalizes persons who willfully aid or abet the commission of cybercrime offenses. In ordinary criminal law, aiding or abetting refers to assistance, encouragement, facilitation, or participation in the commission of an offense.

In the context of cyber libel, aiding or abetting may involve conduct that helps the defamatory publication reach more people, strengthens its impact, or supports its commission.

Possible examples include:

Sharing the defamatory post with approval or endorsement;
Reposting the accusation with an added caption supporting it;
Encouraging others to spread the defamatory content;
Tagging people or groups to maximize reputational damage;
Creating coordinated posts to amplify the defamatory claim;
Supplying defamatory material to the original poster;
Managing a page or group that intentionally republishes the defamatory content;
Helping create graphics, screenshots, captions, or edits used in the defamatory post;
Commenting in a way that republishes or reinforces the libelous accusation.

However, not every interaction with a defamatory post is aiding or abetting. A mere view, reaction, neutral comment, private conversation, or accidental share may not be enough.

The word willfully is important. Liability requires more than mechanical or innocent online activity. There must be some showing that the person knowingly and intentionally helped, encouraged, or participated in the defamatory publication.

V. Is Sharing a Defamatory Facebook Post Itself Cyber Libel?

Sharing a defamatory Facebook post can be treated in two possible ways:

A. Sharing as a separate act of publication

A share may be considered a new publication because it communicates the defamatory matter to another audience. If the person sharing the post adds a caption endorsing the accusation, repeats the defamatory claim, or presents it as true, the share may be treated as an independent defamatory publication.

For example:

“Totoo ito. Magnanakaw talaga si Juan. Ikalat natin.”

This is not a neutral share. It adopts the accusation, adds endorsement, and encourages dissemination.

B. Sharing as aiding or abetting the original cyber libel

Even if the sharer did not create the original defamatory content, the act of sharing may be argued as assistance or encouragement if it was done knowingly and willfully to spread the defamatory material.

For example:

“Everyone should share this so her business gets destroyed.”

This may show intent to amplify reputational harm.

C. Sharing as non-criminal or insufficient conduct

A share may not amount to criminal liability when the circumstances show lack of intent, lack of endorsement, lack of knowledge of falsity, or absence of defamatory meaning.

For example:

“Is this true? Does anyone know what happened?”

A cautious, questioning, non-accusatory share may still be risky, but it is less clearly defamatory than a share that asserts the accusation as fact.

VI. The Importance of the Caption or Added Comment

The legal risk often depends on what the sharer added.

A Facebook share is not always a simple act of forwarding. It may include a caption, emoji, hashtag, tag, comment, or additional accusation. These additions can transform the share into a separate defamatory publication.

High-risk captions

Examples of captions that increase liability risk include:

“Confirmed scammer.”
“This person should be jailed.”
“Everyone knows she stole money.”
“Do not trust this corrupt official.”
“Share this until he loses his job.”
“Finally, the truth about this criminal.”

These statements suggest endorsement and republication.

Lower-risk captions

Examples of captions that may reduce, but not eliminate, risk include:

“Is this verified?”
“Posting for awareness, but I do not know if this is true.”
“Can anyone provide official information?”
“This is an allegation; waiting for the other side.”
“Sharing because this is a matter of public concern.”

Even these may still be risky if the shared content is clearly defamatory and the sharer helps spread it widely.

VII. Liability Is Not Automatic

A person who shares a defamatory post is not automatically guilty of aiding or abetting cyber libel. Criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution would likely need to prove:

The original or shared content was defamatory;
The complainant was identifiable;
The content was published to a third person;
The accused knowingly shared, endorsed, or helped spread it;
The act was malicious or unjustified;
The share was made through a computer system;
The accused’s participation was willful.

The key point is that a Facebook share can be evidence of participation, but it is not conclusive by itself.

VIII. The Role of Intent

Intent is crucial in aiding or abetting.

A person may share a post for many reasons:

To warn others;
To ask whether the allegation is true;
To criticize the original post;
To preserve evidence;
To report wrongdoing;
To join a coordinated attack;
To shame the target;
To increase the post’s reach;
To express agreement with the accusation.

The law is concerned with whether the person willfully assisted or encouraged the libelous publication.

A person who shares a defamatory post with a caption saying “This is fake and should be reported” is in a very different position from someone who shares it saying “This is true, destroy this person.”

IX. Truth Is Not Always a Complete Defense by Itself

In Philippine libel law, truth may be a defense, but it is not always enough by itself. The accused may need to show that the publication was made with good motives and for justifiable ends, especially in criminal libel.

This is important online because many users assume that “as long as it is true, it is safe to post.” That is too simplistic.

A post accusing someone of misconduct may still invite legal risk if it is made primarily to shame, harass, extort, threaten, or destroy reputation rather than to pursue a legitimate public interest.

For matters involving public officers, public funds, consumer protection, public safety, or public concern, speech receives stronger protection, but the form, wording, evidence, and motive still matter.

X. Opinion, Fair Comment, and Protected Speech

Not all negative statements are libelous. Philippine law recognizes space for opinion, criticism, satire, fair comment, and public discussion.

Statements of pure opinion are generally less actionable than false statements of fact. For example:

“I think the mayor handled the project poorly.”

This is different from:

“The mayor stole the project funds.”

The first is criticism. The second imputes a crime.

Fair comment on matters of public interest may be protected when based on true or substantially true facts and made without actual malice. This matters in posts about public officials, government projects, consumer warnings, professional conduct, and institutional accountability.

However, labeling a statement as “opinion” does not automatically protect it. A post that implies undisclosed defamatory facts may still be actionable.

For example:

“In my opinion, she is a thief.”

This is still potentially defamatory because it imputes criminal conduct.

XI. Public Figures, Public Officers, and Matters of Public Concern

The standards may differ when the person discussed is a public officer, public figure, candidate, influencer, business owner, or someone involved in a public controversy.

Philippine courts have recognized that public officials and public figures are subject to wider public scrutiny. Criticism of official conduct, public duties, government action, or public controversies receives constitutional protection.

Still, free speech does not protect knowingly false accusations of fact or reckless disregard for truth.

For example, criticizing a public officer’s handling of funds is generally protected if based on facts and stated as opinion or fair comment. But falsely accusing the officer of stealing public money, without basis, may be defamatory.

In the Facebook-sharing context, users should distinguish between:

Sharing verified public records;
Commenting on official conduct;
Expressing opinion based on disclosed facts;
Repeating unverified accusations as truth;
Joining a mob-like online attack.

The last two carry the highest legal risk.

XII. The “Single Publication Rule” and Online Posts

Philippine cyber libel has been shaped by jurisprudence recognizing the special nature of online publication. One important concept is the single publication rule, which generally treats a single online posting as one publication for purposes such as prescription, rather than treating every click, view, or access as a new publication.

However, a republication may create a distinct issue. If a person shares, reposts, reuploads, or materially modifies defamatory content, that may be argued as a separate publication rather than a mere continued consequence of the original post.

Thus, a Facebook share can matter because it may not be merely passive viewing. It may be a new communicative act.

XIII. Prescription Period

Cyber libel has generated much discussion regarding prescription because ordinary libel and cyber libel may be treated differently due to the penalty attached under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The applicable prescriptive period has been the subject of legal debate and jurisprudential development. In practical terms, complainants often argue for a longer prescriptive period for cyber libel than ordinary libel because cyber libel carries a higher penalty under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

For anyone facing a cyber libel complaint, prescription should be examined carefully based on:

Date of original posting;
Date of sharing or reposting;
Whether the share was a new publication;
Date of discovery;
Applicable jurisprudence;
The exact offense charged;
Whether the complaint is for ordinary libel, cyber libel, or both.

This is especially important because a share made long after the original post may be treated by the complainant as a fresh publication.

XIV. Persons Who May Be Liable

In a Facebook cyber libel situation, several persons may potentially be investigated or charged depending on the facts:

1. Original poster

The person who wrote or uploaded the defamatory statement is the most obvious potential accused.

2. Page administrator or moderator

A person managing a Facebook page or group may face scrutiny if they posted, approved, pinned, promoted, or intentionally allowed defamatory material to circulate.

Mere admin status alone should not automatically create liability. Participation, knowledge, control, and intent matter.

3. Sharer or reposter

A person who shares the defamatory content may be liable if the share amounts to republication or willful assistance.

4. Commenter

A commenter may be liable if the comment itself is defamatory or if it repeats and endorses the libelous allegation.

5. Content creator or editor

Someone who designs graphics, edits videos, prepares captions, or supplies defamatory material may be liable if they knowingly assisted in the publication.

6. Coordinated participants

Persons involved in a planned online campaign to defame someone may be treated as participants, conspirators, or aiders depending on evidence.

XV. What Evidence Is Usually Relevant?

Cyber libel complaints involving Facebook commonly rely on digital and testimonial evidence.

Relevant evidence may include:

Screenshots of the original post;
Screenshots of the share;
URL of the post;
Date and time of posting;
Privacy setting of the post;
Number of reactions, comments, and shares;
Captions added by the sharer;
Comments by the sharer;
Tags, hashtags, or mentions;
Identity of the Facebook account owner;
Admissions in messages;
Prior disputes showing motive;
Evidence that the accused knew the allegation was false;
Evidence that the post reached third persons;
Testimony of people who saw the post;
Business, employment, or reputational consequences;
Takedown history;
Preservation requests;
Platform records, where available.

Screenshots should ideally show the account name, profile link, date, caption, post content, comments, and URL. However, screenshots alone may be challenged for authenticity, so complainants often try to support them with witnesses, metadata, notarized affidavits, device inspection, or platform records.

XVI. Defenses of a Person Who Shared the Post

A person accused of aiding or abetting cyber libel by sharing a Facebook post may raise several defenses depending on the facts.

1. No defamatory imputation

The shared content may not actually impute a crime, vice, defect, or discreditable circumstance.

2. No identification

The complainant may not be reasonably identifiable from the post.

3. No publication to a third person

If the content was not actually communicated to another person, publication may be disputed. This is harder to argue for public Facebook posts but may matter for limited or private settings.

4. Lack of malice

The accused may argue absence of malice, especially if the share was made in good faith, for public interest, or without intent to defame.

5. Privileged communication

Certain communications are privileged. Absolute privilege is narrow. Qualified privilege may apply to statements made in performance of a legal, moral, or social duty, or fair and true reports of official proceedings, provided there is no actual malice.

6. Truth, good motives, and justifiable ends

The accused may argue that the statement was true, made for good motives, and published for justifiable ends.

7. Fair comment

The accused may argue that the post involved fair comment on a matter of public interest.

8. No willful aiding or abetting

The accused may argue that merely sharing did not amount to intentional assistance or encouragement of a crime.

9. No adoption of the defamatory statement

The accused may argue that the share did not endorse the accusation, especially if the caption questioned, criticized, or neutrally discussed the post.

10. Account compromise or lack of authorship

The accused may deny control over the account or show hacking, impersonation, unauthorized access, or fake accounts.

11. Prescription

The complaint may be challenged if filed beyond the applicable prescriptive period.

12. Constitutional protection

In matters involving public concern, public officials, or public figures, the accused may invoke free speech and press freedom principles.

XVII. Civil Liability

Cyber libel may carry not only criminal penalties but also civil liability. A complainant may seek damages for injury to reputation, mental anguish, social humiliation, business losses, or other harm.

Possible civil consequences include:

Moral damages;
Exemplary damages;
Actual damages, if proven;
Attorney’s fees, in proper cases;
Costs of suit;
Injunctive or takedown-related relief in appropriate proceedings.

A person who shares a defamatory post may be sued or included in a complaint if the complainant believes the share contributed to reputational damage.

XVIII. Criminal Penalties

Cyber libel carries heavier penalties than ordinary libel because the Cybercrime Prevention Act generally imposes a penalty one degree higher than that provided by the Revised Penal Code for the underlying offense.

Because criminal penalties involve liberty, courts must apply strict standards of proof. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Doubts about authorship, intent, identification, malice, or publication may be significant.

XIX. Platform Behavior That Increases Legal Risk

Certain online behaviors make liability more likely.

1. Adding accusatory captions

Sharing with words that adopt the accusation as true is dangerous.

2. Encouraging virality

Statements such as “share this until everyone knows” may support an inference of intent to amplify reputational harm.

3. Tagging employers, clients, family, or community groups

This may show an intent to maximize damage.

4. Reposting after deletion

Reposting a deleted defamatory post may be treated as a deliberate republication.

5. Sharing to large groups or pages

Posting to public groups, community pages, professional groups, or business pages increases reach and potential harm.

6. Adding insults or threats

Even if the original post is borderline, added insults may create separate liability.

7. Ignoring corrections

Continuing to share after being informed that the allegation is false may support malice.

8. Participating in coordinated harassment

Group chats planning to post, share, and attack a target may become strong evidence of willful participation.

XX. Platform Behavior That May Reduce Legal Risk

Certain behaviors may reduce exposure, although they do not guarantee immunity.

1. Verify before sharing

Do not share accusations unless backed by reliable documents, official records, or firsthand evidence.

2. Avoid stating accusations as facts

Use careful wording when discussing unresolved allegations.

3. Avoid unnecessary identification

If public warning is necessary, avoid naming or showing identifiable details unless legally justified.

4. Do not add defamatory captions

A neutral or cautionary caption is safer than an endorsing one.

5. Delete or correct promptly

Prompt correction may reduce damages and weaken claims of malice.

6. Preserve context

If sharing for public interest, include sources, official documents, or context rather than inflammatory language.

7. Use proper channels

For crimes, workplace misconduct, fraud, or abuse, reporting to authorities or proper institutions is safer than trial by Facebook.

XXI. Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Sharing a post accusing someone of theft

A user shares a post saying “Maria stole company funds” and adds, “Kaya pala yumaman. Magnanakaw talaga.”

This is high risk. The sharer adopted the accusation as true and added defamatory commentary.

Scenario 2: Sharing a consumer complaint

A customer shares a post alleging that a business scammed buyers and adds, “I also paid and never received my order. Here are receipts.”

This may still be risky, but the presence of personal experience, documents, and consumer-protection motive may support defenses of truth, good motives, and public interest.

Scenario 3: Sharing a blind item

A post says “A certain married doctor in our town is having an affair with a patient,” and the sharer tags people who know the doctor.

Even without a name, identification may be established through context. The share may increase liability risk.

Scenario 4: Sharing to ask for verification

A user shares a post accusing a public official of corruption and writes, “Is this true? Are there official records?”

This is less risky than endorsing the accusation, but still risky if the shared content is plainly defamatory and widely circulated.

Scenario 5: Sharing with criticism of the defamatory post

A user shares a defamatory post and says, “This post is irresponsible and should not be spread.”

This is less likely to be treated as aiding or abetting because the share does not endorse the defamatory statement. However, it still technically republishes the content, so context matters.

Scenario 6: Sharing after being warned it is false

A user shares a defamatory accusation, receives proof that it is false, but continues to repost it.

This strongly increases legal risk because it may show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

XXII. Aiding or Abetting Versus Conspiracy

Aiding or abetting is not always the same as conspiracy.

Aiding or abetting involves helping, encouraging, or facilitating the offense. Conspiracy involves agreement to commit the offense and participation in its execution.

In cyber libel cases, conspiracy may be alleged when several people coordinate to create, publish, and spread defamatory content. Evidence may include group chats, planned posting schedules, shared captions, instructions to tag people, or coordinated amplification.

A mere share after seeing a post online is usually easier to frame as aiding or abetting or republication than conspiracy, unless there is evidence of prior agreement.

XXIII. The Special Problem of “Viral Justice”

Many cyber libel disputes arise because users attempt to seek justice through online exposure. This may happen in cases involving unpaid debts, alleged scams, cheating partners, workplace abuse, sexual misconduct, neighborhood disputes, school conflicts, or political controversies.

The problem is that Facebook punishment can outrun due process. A person may be condemned publicly before evidence is verified. Even if the accusation later turns out to be false, the reputational damage may be irreversible.

Philippine cyber libel law functions partly as a remedy against reputational harm caused by this kind of viral accusation. But it must also be balanced against freedom of expression, public accountability, whistleblowing, consumer protection, and criticism of public officials.

The legal challenge is to distinguish between legitimate public-interest speech and malicious online defamation.

XXIV. Interaction with Other Possible Offenses

A defamatory Facebook share may overlap with other legal issues, depending on the content.

Possible related offenses or claims include:

Grave threats;
Unjust vexation;
Intriguing against honor;
Slander by deed;
Data privacy violations;
Anti-photo and video voyeurism violations;
Violence against women-related cyber harassment;
Child protection violations, if minors are involved;
Identity theft or fake account misuse;
Computer-related offenses;
Civil actions for damages;
Administrative or employment consequences.

For example, posting someone’s private photos with defamatory captions may implicate privacy laws in addition to cyber libel.

XXV. Liability of Likes, Reactions, and Emojis

A mere Facebook “like” or reaction is generally less likely to amount to aiding or abetting cyber libel than a share or repost. However, context can matter.

A reaction alone usually does not republish the defamatory statement in the same way a share does. But if reactions are part of coordinated harassment or accompanied by comments, tags, or reposts, they may become relevant evidence of intent, malice, or participation.

Emojis can also carry meaning. A laughing emoji on a defamatory accusation may be argued as ridicule, but standing alone it is usually weaker evidence than a written endorsement.

XXVI. Liability of Comments

Comments can independently create liability. A person who comments under a defamatory post may be liable if the comment itself is defamatory.

Examples:

“Yes, he stole money from me too.”
“She has always been a scammer.”
“That doctor is a sexual predator.”
“Everyone knows he takes bribes.”

Even if the original post is not libelous, a comment may be.

A comment may also show that the commenter adopted or amplified the original defamatory meaning.

XXVII. Private Messages and Group Chats

Cyber libel usually requires publication to a third person. Private messages and group chats may satisfy publication if the defamatory statement is communicated to someone other than the person defamed.

A defamatory accusation sent to a group chat may be actionable if the other elements are present. A defamatory post shared in a private Facebook group may also be publication because group members are third persons.

Privacy settings affect reach and damages, but they do not automatically defeat publication.

XXVIII. Deleting the Share Does Not Necessarily Erase Liability

Deleting a defamatory share may help reduce harm, but it does not automatically erase criminal or civil liability. Screenshots, archives, witness testimony, and platform records may preserve evidence.

However, prompt deletion, apology, correction, or clarification may be relevant to damages, malice, settlement, or prosecutorial discretion.

XXIX. Practical Guidance Before Sharing a Defamatory Post

Before sharing a post that accuses someone of wrongdoing, a person should ask:

Is the person identifiable?
Does the post accuse them of a crime, immoral act, dishonesty, incompetence, or disgraceful behavior?
Do I know whether the accusation is true?
Do I have documents or firsthand evidence?
Am I sharing to inform the public, or to shame the person?
Is there a proper authority where this should be reported instead?
Am I adding captions that adopt the accusation as fact?
Could the post damage someone’s job, business, family, or safety?
Is the matter of public concern?
Would I be willing to defend the statement in court?

If the answer suggests uncertainty, hostility, or lack of verification, sharing is legally risky.

XXX. Best Practices for Public Warnings

There are situations where public warnings may be legitimate, especially involving scams, consumer harm, public safety, or official misconduct. But the language should be careful.

Safer practices include:

Stick to verifiable facts;
Avoid exaggeration;
Avoid name-calling;
Attach receipts or official documents only when lawful;
State what personally happened rather than making broad accusations;
Use “alleged” accurately, not as a magic shield;
Avoid calling someone a criminal unless there is a final conviction or reliable legal basis;
Avoid unnecessary personal details;
Report to authorities;
Avoid encouraging harassment;
Correct errors promptly.

For example, instead of saying:

“Juan is a scammer. Ipakulong ito. Share until viral.”

A safer formulation would be:

“I paid Juan on March 1 for an item that has not been delivered. I have requested a refund and have not received one. I am posting the transaction details relevant to my complaint and will file a report with the proper authorities.”

This reduces, but does not eliminate, legal risk.

XXXI. Key Takeaways

A person may be exposed to cyber libel liability in the Philippines not only by writing a defamatory Facebook post but also by sharing, reposting, or helping spread it.

The decisive issue is not the share alone, but the totality of circumstances: the content, caption, audience, intent, knowledge, endorsement, public interest, truth, and harm.

A share is especially risky when it:

Adopts the defamatory accusation as true;
Adds defamatory commentary;
Encourages others to spread the post;
Tags people to maximize damage;
Targets an identifiable person;
Concerns unverified accusations;
Continues after correction or warning;
Forms part of a coordinated online attack.

On the other hand, liability is less clear when the share is neutral, critical of the defamatory post, made for verification, based on public records, or connected to legitimate public concern.

Cyber libel law must be read together with constitutional free speech protections. Philippine law does not punish every harsh opinion, criticism, complaint, or public-interest warning. But it does punish malicious defamatory imputations made through online platforms.

The safest rule is simple: do not share defamatory accusations as fact unless they are verified, legally defensible, and made for a legitimate purpose.