Jen Affleck Fires Back at Maks Chmerkovskiy: "We Don’t Tolerate Jan Slander"
A brand-new feud is exploding on and off the Dancing with the Stars ballroom floor, and reality star Jen Affleck is drawing a line in the sand—or, rather, on TikTok—when it comes to defending her partner, Jan Ravnik, against ballroom royalty.
The battle lines were clearly drawn on Monday, Oct. 27, when Jen Affleck, the 25-year-old fan-favorite from Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, posted a pointed, yet hilarious, video. The message? She has absolutely zero patience for negative commentary aimed at her professional partner, Slovenian dancer Jan Ravnik.
Ravnik, 30, is already one of Season 34’s most-talked-about pros, not just for his incredible chemistry with Affleck but also for his high-profile past as a standout dancer on Taylor Swift’s record-breaking Eras Tour. Now, he’s caught in the crossfire with a seasoned DWTS legend.
The TikTok That Lit the Fuse
Affleck's viral TikTok post was a playful but unmistakable clap-back. Filmed between grueling rehearsals, the clip shows Affleck furiously typing on her phone, all while a masked, mock-serious Ravnik lip-syncs the now-familiar audio:
“Take it down. Take it down. Take it down. We need it gone. Take it down. That does not represent me or what we need to be doing.”
The caption left no room for doubt: “We don’t tolerate Jan slander in this house !! @Jan Ravnik @Dancing with the Stars #DWTS”
The fiery defense comes just days after former DWTS champion Maksim Chmerkovskiy sharply criticized Ravnik’s foundational ballroom skills, igniting a passionate debate across social media about standards, new blood, and the future of the show.
The Ballroom Veteran’s Blunt Critique
The controversy began during the Oct. 24 episode of The Penthouse with Peta, the podcast hosted by Chmerkovskiy’s wife and fellow DWTS champion, Peta Murgatroyd.
Maks, who is famous for his unfiltered critiques, did not hold back on Ravnik, whose background is in commercial and concert dance, not traditional competitive ballroom. The veteran pro went far beyond simple critique, questioning the entire casting decision.
"I'm sorry, Jan has absolutely no business being a pro on Dancing with the Stars. There's zero foundation, technique, quality, understanding of the partnership," Chmerkovskiy stated bluntly on the podcast. He even called Ravnik’s foxtrot performance "absurd," claiming the newcomer “had no idea what [a] foxtrot is supposed to look like.”
Peta Murgatroyd, while gentler, echoed the technical concerns, reminding listeners that it is Ravnik’s first season as a pro. She said of Affleck: "Jen has a major disadvantage. She's not getting taught the base of the dance."
Why Fans Are Rushing to #TeamJanifer’s Defense
While Maks’ critique stems from a purist's love for ballroom, fans argue that new blood is precisely what keeps DWTS exciting and relevant. Ravnik brings a younger audience, including the powerful Swiftie demographic, who know him from his viral Eras Tour moments.
The wave of support for the rookie pro argues that ballroom skills take years to master, and he is clearly improving. Furthermore, the undeniable on-camera chemistry and genuine friendship between Jen and Jan—dubbed #TeamJanifer—is exactly the kind of loyalty and drama that audiences vote for.
For viewers, Affleck’s public defense of her partner is a powerful, humanizing moment. She’s not just a celebrity learning to dance; she’s an authentic person standing up for her friend. This narrative shift from critique to comeback story is pure reality television gold.
What This Means for the Competition
Becoming a DWTS pro is a baptism by fire, requiring not just choreography skills but also the ability to coach a celebrity, entertain millions, and handle immense public pressure. Ravnik's rapid transition from stadium tours to competitive ballroom was always going to put him under a spotlight—now it’s an intense blaze.
Backstage whispers suggest this controversy could actually be a massive gift to the duo. A fierce defense by a popular celebrity, combined with a pro determined to prove the skeptics wrong, is the perfect recipe for a redemption arc.
If Jen and Jan deliver a standout routine on the next episode, they could successfully flip this harsh criticism into an avalanche of votes. As any loyal DWTS fan knows, viewers love an underdog story powered by a united front.
One thing is certain: Jen Affleck has made her position unequivocally clear. The public feud has elevated Jan Ravnik from 'Taylor Swift Dancer' to 'DWTS Fighter,' and the ballroom battle for the Mirrorball just got a whole lot more dramatic.
Your Right to Criticize vs. The Line into Defamation
In the age of social media, the average consumer has the power of a national newspaper editor—the power to publish. But where do honest criticism and fan outrage end, and illegal defamation begin? This is the legal flashpoint whenever a public figure, like a professional dancer, is subjected to harsh, personal critiques.
The Legal Shield: Opinion vs. Fact
The single most important legal distinction you must understand is between opinion and a false statement of fact. Defamation (which includes written libel and spoken slander) only applies to statements of fact that are proven false and cause harm to someone's reputation.
For the general consumer, your online critique is typically protected by the First Amendment right to free speech if it is clearly an opinion. For example, saying "Jan has absolutely no business being a pro" is a subjective, harsh opinion—it's an evaluation of skill and suitability that cannot be verified as absolutely "true" or "false" in court. Calling a dance "terrible" is also an opinion.
The line is crossed when a statement appears to be a verifiable fact. For instance, claiming, "Jan was fired from his last job for stealing from his student," would be a statement of fact. If that statement is false and harms his professional standing, it is likely defamation. If you write, "I think Jan is a poor teacher because he shows up late," the opinion ("poor teacher") may still be defensible if the underlying fact ("shows up late") is true or is based on clearly stated and true underlying facts. The danger is a "bare comment," like calling someone "a disgrace" without stating the facts you're basing it on, which can sometimes be interpreted as implying undisclosed, damaging facts.
The Higher Hurdle for Public Figures
The stakes are raised significantly because the subject, a professional dancer on a widely broadcast show, is considered a public figure. In the U.S., a public figure who sues for defamation must prove not just that the statement was false and harmful, but that the defendant acted with "actual malice."
This is an extremely high standard, established by the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. "Actual malice" means the person making the statement either knew the information was false or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth (i.e., they entertained serious doubts about its truthfulness). For the average fan posting an angry comment online, proving this intentionality is incredibly difficult for the celebrity plaintiff, which acts as a powerful shield for consumer criticism.
Your Actionable Insight: The "Why" is Your Defense
Before posting a sharp critique about a public figure's skills or performance, follow this key legal safety net: always connect your opinion to verifiable or observed public facts.
- Bad (Riskier): "Jan Ravnik is corrupt." (Implies an undisclosed, damaging fact).
- Good (Safer): "Jan Ravnik's choreography tonight was the worst of the season—the lack of technique shown in the Viennese Waltz was shocking." (Clearly an opinion tied to a public, verifiable event—the dance itself).
By framing your critiques as subjective evaluations of performance, style, or quality, and avoiding false accusations about a person's conduct (like committing a crime, being dishonest, or misrepresenting credentials), you are effectively protecting your speech under the powerful umbrella of the First Amendment's right to comment and criticize matters of public interest.
