Facebook Defamation — the Legal Framework
Defamation spread on a social network is assessed under Georgian law exactly like any other: the Civil Code of Georgia has no special norm for Facebook — there are general rules that also work in the digital environment. There are two grounds: Article 993 — a person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicises facts harmful to the property of another person is obliged to compensate the damage arising therefrom, if those facts are evidently incorrect; and Article 18 — a person has the right, through the court, to protect his honour, dignity, privacy or business reputation from violation. Facebook is only the environment; the legal substance concerns the fact disseminated and its evident falsity.
Fixing the Evidence — the First Stage of the Case
A digital defamation case begins with evidence: a post, a comment or a share can unilaterally disappear, change or be deleted, and therefore its fixation happens on the very first day — with the account's identity, the date, the content and the scope of dissemination. The second question is the identification of the author: who disseminates the fact and whether his person can be established. The third is the factual nature: Article 993 concerns precisely the dissemination of facts, not the expression of opinion. This difference is the heart of the case: it must be determined whether the statement was an assessment or a concrete assertion verifiable against the truth.
Moreover, the digital environment adds another layer: the scope of dissemination is far broader than a paper publication — a single post reaches thousands of readers within hours, and this circumstance is reflected in the assessment of the damage as well. Therefore at the fixation stage it is necessary to document not only the text itself but also the scale of its dissemination — the account, the group, the number of shares and the context. Every subsequent stage of the case is built on this initial picture.
Cessation and Denial Through the Same Channel — Article 18
Part three of Article 18 contains a rule particularly important for the digital environment: where data violating a person's honour, dignity, business reputation or privacy has been disseminated through mass-information media, its denial must also take place through the same media. A social network is exactly such a medium: where the falsehood spread, there the denial must occur — with the same visibility. Part two of the same article regulates protection through the court, and part four gives the right to publish responsive information. This resolves what a victim of defamation needs most — not only compensation, but the restoration of public truth.