Cyberbullying, Defamation & Digital Reputation

PROPOSED / DRAFT — CYBERBULLYING, DEFAMATION & DIGITAL REPUTATION

Americans should be free to criticize, disagree, share truthful experiences, express opinions, report suspected wrongdoing in good faith, and participate in public debate. Defamation and cyberbullying rules must not become tools for silencing lawful speech or punishing an accuser merely because a claim cannot ultimately be proven.

The law should provide effective remedies for knowingly or recklessly false statements of material fact that cause legally recognized reputational or economic harm. Standards must clearly distinguish provably false factual claims from opinion, satire, rhetorical exaggeration, parody, fair comment, and substantially true reporting.

Digital misconduct should also address targeted harassment, repeated unwanted contact, credible threats, doxxing that creates a foreseeable safety risk, impersonation, manipulated evidence, nonconsensual intimate imagery, coordinated false-review campaigns, and accounts created to deliberately spread fabricated allegations or evade lawful platform enforcement.

Rules must apply equally regardless of sex, race, religion, political affiliation, popularity, profession, or relationship status. Men and women deserve the same protection, and the same evidentiary and legal standards.

Remedies may include rapid correction and retraction procedures, preservation orders, narrowly tailored injunctions after due process, identification of anonymous speakers through lawful court process when a viable claim is shown, compensatory damages for proven harm, and proportionate penalties for intentional and repeated misconduct.

Platforms should publish understandable reporting and appeal procedures, preserve relevant evidence after lawful notice, disclose enforcement standards, and act consistently. Government may not require platforms to remove constitutionally protected speech merely because it is controversial or embarrassing.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Online abuse can destroy safety, employment, education, and reputation within hours, while careless regulation can suppress protected speech. The policy must provide fast remedies for provable misconduct without converting disagreement, criticism, or unproven accusations into crimes.

WHAT MPA WILL DO

• Establish an expedited civil process for preservation of evidence, correction, retraction, and narrowly tailored relief.

• Require a verified prima facie showing before a court orders identification of an anonymous speaker.

• Create clear civil and criminal penalties for doxxing tied to a foreseeable safety risk, nonconsensual intimate imagery, impersonation used to defraud or materially injure, fabricated digital evidence, and repeated evasion of lawful protective orders.

• Protect good-faith reports to police, regulators, employers, schools, journalists, and professional bodies, while preserving liability for deliberate fabrication.

• Require large platforms to publish reporting, notice, evidence-preservation, appeal, and response-time standards and to report aggregate enforcement data.

SAFEGUARDS

No remedy may be based solely on viewpoint, offensiveness, political criticism, satire, parody, rhetorical exaggeration, or inability to prove a good-faith allegation. Final injunctions require notice, an opportunity to be heard, and specific judicial findings.

WHAT MPA WILL MEASURE

Median time to preserve evidence and resolve urgent petitions; rate of corrected or retracted false material; repeat-offender rates; platform response and appeal times; and the number of orders reversed for violating speech or due-process protections.

Related policies: Personal Rights & Freedoms; Image, Likeness & Digital Replicas; Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Media & Automated Accounts; Privacy Rights.

Status: Proposed / Draft — not yet formally adopted.

Originally published: August 24, 2026.

Last updated: September 25, 2026.

Version: Draft 0.3.