Freedom of expression has limits, Supreme Court rules in social media defamation case
Image: FILE
Neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression protects a person who posts defamatory material concerning another on social media, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in turning down an appeal by a farmer after his Facebook post sparked death threats against an attorney.
A dispute arose between Pretoria attorney Pieter Strydom and farmer Francois Harman after the latter accused Strydom in a Facebook post of targeting white farmers.
Strydom, upset by the contents of the post, obtained an urgent interdict against Harman to stop harassing him.
The high court found that Harman and his friends and followers on his Facebook account posted and published offensive and life-threatening defamatory statements concerning Strydom.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Some of the postings were found by the high court to amount to a smear campaign.
The high court ordered Harman to remove the published material from his Facebook account, which referred to Strydom.
Harman was further ordered to submit, under oath, a list of the particulars of the persons who made the responding postings.
While Harman had meanwhile removed his posts, he turned to the SCA to appeal against the fact that he had to disclose the particulars of his followers who published threats against Strydom.
Strydom is an attorney and insolvency practitioner who also represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and its financial agent, Unigro Financial Services.
The Land Bank and Unigro advance loans to farmers, subject to agreed terms and conditions, which include mortgaging their farms as collateral. The loan agreements provide for annual instalment payments of the amount loaned, due to seasonal harvest of the crops.
Whenever a farmer falls in default of payment, the Land Bank instructs its attorneys, in this case, Strydom's law firm, to institute legal proceedings to recover the debt.
Included among the farmers was Harman and his company, who fell into arrears with payments.
Harman took to his Facebook account, stating that Strydom and some officials at the Land Bank were the cause of his problems. Strydom obtained an interdict against Harman, prohibiting him from committing verbal abuse through electronic communication as well as refraining from harassing him. The order was obtained in Harman's absence.
The following day, a messenger tried to serve him with the protection order, but Harman denied them entry into his house and instead photographed them. After they left, he again took to his Facebook account and posted the pictures together with a post regarding how the lives of white farmers are made difficult in the country.
On the same day, his Facebook post was followed by a slew of other vitriolic postings from different persons - some made death threats towards Strydom. This resulted in the court ordering him to take down his post and to disclose the identities of those who had levelled threats and made defamatory statements towards Strydom.
Harman refused to submit the list of his Facebook friends involved and cited various excuses, including that 'the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) prevented him from divulging this information. He also stated freedom of expression as an excuse.
To post a message on Facebook that someone 'needs a bullet between the eyes' is an impermissible exercise of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits. The one obvious limit is when its exercise encroaches into the domain of another person's right, the SCA said.
It found that Strydom is entitled to the list of persons responsible for these unlawful acts in order to vindicate his rights, if he deems fit to do so.
Cape Times
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
5 hours ago
- The South African
Another lie? Joslin's mom has 'dream' of her location
Social media users are reacting to rumours that Kelly Smith reportedly had a 'dream' about the location of her missing child, Joslin Smith. This comes as police confirmed that they were following up on new leads in the informal settlement of Middelpos. In May, the Saldanha Bay woman and two others, Jacquin 'Boeta' Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn, were convicted and sentenced by Western Cape High Court judge Nathan Erasmus for kidnapping and child trafficking. Last February, the blonde-haired, green-eyed girl disappeared from her home. According to witnesses, she was allegedly sold to a sangoma for the purposes of 'muti'. On social media, South Africans have been speculating after police confirmed that they were following up on new information about the disappearance of Joslin Smith. Many referred to a rumour that the little girl's mother – Kelly Smith – had 'dreamt' that Joslin was dead. She claimed her remains were located in Middelpos, where the Smith family resided. One Facebook user posted, 'Kelly apparently had a dream that she is buried in a drain in the cemetery behind Middelpos. Kelly is playing games.' Another added: 'Kelly Smith is probably the one who helped dig the hole then. Her hands and arms were full of sand'. A third added: 'I think that Kelly has possibly given the investigating officers information regarding who exactly it was that she sold Joslin to'. Is Joslin Smith still alive? According to rumours, her mother believes she is dead and her remains are buried near her home. Images via YouTube screenshot: SABC News. During an eight-week trial, witnesses relayed how Kelly Smith bragged about selling her daughter to a sangoma for R20 000. She also allegedly claimed her child had been trafficked by a Nigerian man. Kelly reportedly told her sister that Joslin could also be 'hiding' in the Middelpos informal settlement. Kelly and her co-accused refused to testify in court. In a statement, police confirmed that they were following up on new leads in the active investigation into Joslin Smith's disappearance. It read: 'SAPS teams led by detectives with K-9 members, search and rescue teams, and local police have been scouring an identified area in Saldanha Bay. Whether the ongoing search will yield any success remains to be seen. 'It is worth reiterating that police have an obligation to follow up and test all information that is brought to their attention'. Police appealed to the public to give them space and time to perform their duties as the investigation continues.' Meanwhile, Kelly Smith, Jacquin Appollis, and Steven van Rhyn will appeal their life sentences for kidnapping and child trafficking relating to Joslin Smith. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila confirmed that the trio will appear in the Western Cape High Court on 12 and 13 August. He said: 'All three have filed papers challenging both conviction and sentence. The NPA will oppose the applications, and we are confident that there are no prospects of success. State witness Lourentia Lombaard – a former accused – has yet to hear her fate from Judge Nathan Erasmus. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
The Citizen
5 hours ago
- The Citizen
One-legged man steals cop car from Umhlali Saps
In a plot twist that could make Fast & Furious look sluggish, a 60-year-old Umhlali resident with one leg was arrested today after allegedly boosting a police vehicle from right under the noses of the cops. Yes, you read that correctly – a man with a single leg reportedly outpaced a station full of officers and drove off in a patrol car from Umhlali Saps premises on Saturday morning. According to police spokesperson Priya Nunkumar-Bukum, the stolen ride was tracked down in Ballito thanks to swift teamwork between Umhlali Police and E2 partners. 'The vehicle was recovered and the suspect was arrested by police,' Nunkumar-Bukum confirmed. The suspect now faces a charge of theft of a motor vehicle – and possibly one for audacity. As for how exactly a one-legged man managed to hotwire, enter and escape in a police vehicle without anyone noticing? That's the million-rand question. Police say the matter is under investigation and we suspect someone is in for a rather awkward debriefing. Let this be a reminder: never underestimate a man with a plan – and a prosthetic. Stay in the loop with The North Coast Courier on Facebook, X, Instagram & YouTube for the latest news. Mobile users can join our WhatsApp Broadcast Service here, or if you're on desktop, scan the QR code below.
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Mbeki and Mabandla seek to intervene in R167 million apartheid damages case
Former President Thabo Mbeki and erstwhile justice minister Brigitte Mabandla's application to intervene in an apartheid-era damages claim will be heard on Monday, July 28 by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. Image: DIRCO Former president Thabo Mbeki and ex-justice minister Brigitte Mabandla will on Monday ask to intervene in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria application for R167 million in constitutional damages by families of victims of apartheid-era atrocities. Mbeki and Mabandla have indicated that they want to intervene in the R167m constitutional damages case brought by survivors and victims of apartheid human rights violations to protect their reputations. Survivors and victims of apartheid-era atrocities and the Foundation for Human Rights (FHR) have asked the high court for R167m constitutional damages, which includes about R115.3m over five years, to enable families and organisations supporting them to advance truth, justice, and closure by assisting in pursuing investigations and research, inquests, private prosecutions, and related litigation. Another R8m over five years will enable families and organisations supporting them to play a monitoring role in respect of the work of the policing and justice authorities charged with investigating and prosecuting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases referred to the National Prosecuting Authority. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading An additional R44m over 10 years is sought to enable families and organisations supporting families to pursue commemoration, memorialisation and public education activities around the TRC cases including the holding of public events, publishing of books, and making of documentaries. In their application, survivors and family members of victims also want the court to declare the failure and/or refusal by the president to establish a commission of inquiry into the suppression of the investigation and prosecution of the TRC cases inconsistent with his constitutional responsibilities under the Constitution and a violation of their rights to equality, dignity and the right to life and bodily integrity of the victims in terms of the Constitution. Responding to Mbeki and Mabandla's application to intervene, Lukhanyo Calata, the son of the late Fort Calata who, along with Matthew Goniwe, Sicelo Mhlauli, and Sparrow Mkonto, became known posthumously as the Cradock Four, said the former president and erstwhile minister have no direct and substantial interest in the main application, given that no relief is sought against them in their personal capacities. President Cyril Ramaphosa has since established a commission to be chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Sisi Khampepe to inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations on unlawful interference and collusion since 2003. The government maintains that there is no concrete allegation of interference in the families' case. Mbeki and Mabandla also state that the families make unfounded, false and damaging allegations of interference and collusion against them in their case. They also indicate that the facts of interference and collusion will be better addressed in the commission. According to Mbeki and Mabandla, they are seeking to intervene because the relief sought by the families and the consequent claim for constitutional damages are founded on serious allegations of unconstitutional, unlawful and criminal conduct by them (Mbeki and Mabandla) during the respective tenures, 1999-2008 and.2004-2008, respectively. "We have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings," maintained Mbeki and Mabandla. They continued: "In the absence of our version, the only evidence before this honourable court is in the Calata applicants' founding affidavit. There is therefore a real risk that should we not be granted leave to intervene, the court will be presented with a one-sided narrative and the Calata applicants may be accepted as uncontested." Mbeki and Mabandla told the court they do not seek to intervene merely to set the record straight or out of concern that the court's findings may affect their reputations. "Rather, we seek leave to intervene because the relief sought by the Calata applicants is expressly predicated on allegations of unlawful conduct purportedly committed by us (and other state officials) during our tenure; allegations which we intend to dispute," they explained. The families oppose the application and argue that it is not possible to intervene simply to rebut adverse allegations and that the relief they seek is not directed against Mbeki or Mabandla but against the state. If Mbeki or Mabandla, the families say, feel they have been defamed they have recourse through normal legal remedies and that the application can be decided without the need to make findings in respect of individual role-players, the task of the commission set up by Ramaphosa, according to the FHR.
