---
name: defamation-response
description: "Respond to false, damaging statements about you or your business — decide what actually counts as defamation, preserve evidence, and choose the right response from correction to takedown to legal action. Use when asked someone posted lies about me, respond to a false review/statement, is this defamation, or protect my reputation online. Produces a read on whether it likely crosses from opinion into actionable falsehood, evidence-preservation steps, a tiered response (platform report, correction/retraction request, cease-and-desist, legal), and a caution against reactions that make it worse. Not legal advice."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/defamation-response.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "⚖️" }
  }
---

# Defamation Response

A false, damaging statement is infuriating — but the wrong response (a public flame war, an overblown legal threat) often amplifies it or backfires. This helps you tell the difference between defamation and mere opinion or fair criticism, preserve the evidence, and pick a proportionate response — from a platform report to a retraction demand to, where truly warranted, legal action. It isn't legal advice.

## What This Skill Produces

- **An is-it-defamation read** — a plain-English gut-check on whether it's likely an actionable false statement of fact vs. protected opinion, criticism, or true (if unflattering) statements
- **Evidence preservation** — screenshots with URLs, dates, reach, and any provable harm, captured before it's deleted
- **A tiered response** — from platform/review reporting and a calm public correction, to a private retraction/removal request, to a cease-and-desist, to legal action
- **A "don't make it worse" caution** — how not to amplify (the Streisand effect), inflame, or say something actionable yourself
- **An escalation flag** — when real reputational/financial harm warrants a defamation lawyer

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The statement** — what was said, where, and by whom (if known)
- **True or false** — is it a false statement of fact, an opinion, or partly true
- **The harm** — reach, and any real damage (lost business, etc.)
- **Your goal** — removal, correction/retraction, apology, or deterrence
- **Region** — defamation law varies significantly by jurisdiction

## Framework: Classify, Preserve, Respond Proportionately

1. **Classify honestly.** Defamation generally needs a false *statement of fact* (not opinion), communicated to others, causing harm. Fair criticism, opinion, and true statements usually aren't actionable — be realistic before escalating.
2. **Preserve everything first.** Screenshot the statement with URL, date, and context, and document reach and harm — before the poster deletes it.
3. **Start proportionate.** Often the best first move is a platform/review report or a calm, factual public correction — not a lawsuit. Escalate only as needed.
4. **Request removal/retraction.** A measured private request or a formal cease-and-desist can resolve it; keep it factual.
5. **Don't amplify or self-harm.** Public fights draw attention to the claim (Streisand effect) and an intemperate response can itself be defamatory — stay measured.
6. **Escalate when warranted.** Genuine, provable harm from clear falsehoods is where a defamation lawyer comes in — flag it.

## Output Format

### Defamation response: [statement] · [where] · goal: [x]

**Likely actionable?** [false statement of fact / opinion-criticism / true] → [possibly / probably not] — because [why].
**Preserve now:** screenshots + URLs + dates + reach + evidence of harm.
**Response ladder**
1. Platform/review report (if it breaches policy).
2. Calm factual public correction (if worth responding at all).
3. Private removal/retraction request → cease-and-desist.
4. Legal action (real harm + clear falsehood).
**Avoid:** public flame wars (amplifies it) · saying anything itself defamatory.

> Not legal advice. Defamation law varies by jurisdiction. For real reputational or financial harm, consult a defamation lawyer.

## Quality Checks
- [ ] Realistically classifies fact vs opinion/criticism/truth
- [ ] Preserves evidence before anything else
- [ ] Offers a proportionate, tiered response (report → correct → demand → legal)
- [ ] Warns against amplifying (Streisand) and self-defamation
- [ ] Flags when genuine harm warrants a lawyer
- [ ] States it isn't legal advice / laws vary

## Anti-Patterns
- **Calling everything defamation** — including fair opinion or true statements.
- **Not preserving evidence** before deletion.
- **Jumping to legal threats** for something minor.
- **A public pile-on** that amplifies the claim.
- **Responding with something itself defamatory.**

## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Someone posted lies about my business — what can I do?"
- "Is this false review actually defamation?"
- "How do I get a defamatory post taken down?"
- "Someone's spreading false statements about me online."
- "Should I sue for defamation or is there a better first step?"