I disagree with the term broadly. Slander and harassment really have very specific definitions. Social media mobs and the news are rarely, if ever, held to full (or any) consequences. When the news is punished for slander it's usually very specific things that they've misstated. They can dance around things and paint pictures all they want, as long as they don't directly claim something happened that didn't.

Specific law applies to journalists, under the US First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press. The rules established by the US Supreme Court in NY Times v Sullivan (1964) apply different standards based on whether the subject is a public figure. For example, you can print outright lies about President Biden. You must be very careful regarding a non-public private citizen (not a celebrity, or example).

> Slander and harassment really have very specific definitions.

Yes, I know. I was in a hurry and didn't come up with something better. I'm just pointing out that emotional injuries are well-established. There are plenty more, such as emotional distress in damages.

> Social media mobs ... are rarely, if ever, held to full (or any) consequences.

I think that is, in part, because the legal system hasn't caught up with reality.

Both harassment and slander have very specific legal definitions and likely aren't as broadly applicable as you're thinking though. Slander, specifically, does often have a financial harm component to it as well, though it isn't required.

Agreed; I was just hurrying to provide a well-established example of injuries in the law that involve emotions.