The Streisand Effect – Slander and defamation are legal terms related to harmful false statements about a person.

Slander and defamation are legal terms related to harmful false statements about a person.

Defamation (the broader term)

• Defamation is the general legal wrong of making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation.
• It includes both written and spoken forms.
• To prove defamation, the plaintiff usually must show:
  1. A false statement of fact (not opinion).
  2. Publication (shared with at least one other person).
  3. Fault (negligence or intent).
  4. Harm to reputation (sometimes presumed in serious cases).

Defamation is a civil claim (lawsuit for damages). In some cases it can also have criminal aspects, though rare in many countries.

Slander (a specific type of defamation)

• Slander is spoken defamation — false statements made verbally (in person, on a podcast, video, etc.).
• It is generally considered less serious than written forms because spoken words are often temporary and harder to prove.

Libel (the other main type)

• Libel is written or published defamation — false statements in print, online posts, articles, videos, books, social media, etc.
• Libel is often treated more seriously because it has lasting impact and wider reach.

Key Differences in Summary

Important Notes

• Truth is a defense: If the statement is substantially true, it is not defamation.
• Opinions are usually protected (e.g., “I think she’s dishonest” vs. falsely claiming “She committed fraud”).
• Public figures (like politicians or celebrities) face a higher bar — they must usually prove actual malice (knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth).
• Laws vary significantly by country (e.g., U.S. has strong free speech protections; UK/Europe are stricter on reputation).

In short: Defamation = false damaging statement (umbrella). Slander = the spoken version of it.

People like Candace Owens don’t always “get away with it” — but it’s often very difficult to successfully punish them legally, especially in the U.S. Here’s a clear breakdown:

1. U.S. Defamation Law Strongly Protects Speech (Especially About Public Figures)
– The First Amendment gives very broad free speech protections. Courts make it hard for public figures (politicians, celebrities, their spouses) to win defamation cases.
– For public figures, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice” — that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (a high bar set by New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964).
– Conspiracy theories and “questions” are often treated as opinions or protected rhetorical hyperbole, not provably false statements of fact.
– Even if false and harmful, if the person frames it as “I have questions” or “investigating,” it can be harder to sue successfully.

2. Current Status of Candace Owens + Brigitte Macron Case (as of 2026)
– The Macrons did sue Owens for defamation in U.S. court (Delaware, July 2025).
– The case is still ongoing. Owens’ lawyers filed motions to dismiss (arguing jurisdiction issues, etc.). A hearing on dismissal was scheduled for July 2026.
– The Macrons plan to present scientific/photographic evidence, but the case faces an uphill battle in the U.S. due to free speech standards.
– In France, the Macrons have had more success: multiple people have been convicted of harassment/cyberbullying over the same claims. But U.S. platforms and speakers are harder to reach.

3. Why It Feels Like They “Get Away With It”
– High cost and low success rate: Lawsuits are expensive (hundreds of thousands in legal fees). Many public figures avoid suing because it can amplify the conspiracy (the “Streisand Effect”).
– Platform protections: Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, platforms like YouTube, X, etc., are generally not liable for user-generated content. They can choose to host or demonetize, but often don’t fully remove it.
– Audience and incentives: These claims drive massive engagement, views, donations, and book/podcast sales. The audience often rejects mainstream fact-checks as “cover-ups.”
– No criminal prosecution: In the U.S., false speech like this is almost never a crime (unlike some countries with stricter hate speech or defamation laws).
– Michelle Obama example: She and Barack have not pursued major defamation suits over the “Big Mike” claims, likely for the same reasons — high bar, cost, and risk of giving it more oxygen.

Bottom Line
Owens (and others) operate in a legal environment where controversial, even false, political speech about public figures is heavily shielded. They face reputational risk, potential loss of advertisers/sponsors, platform restrictions, and civil suits that can drag on for years — but criminal punishment or quick big payouts against them are rare in the U.S.

Lawsuits like the Macrons’ are attempts to push back, but success is uncertain and slow. The real check is often public pushback, counter-information, and audience fatigue rather than court victories.