Sign in Subscribe
Social media

Supreme Court of Appeal Rules on Social Media Defamation

Strategic Insights

— 1 min read

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has rejected an appeal by a farmer who used Facebook to post defamatory material against an attorney, sparking death threats. The court upheld the lower court's decision ordering the farmer to remove the defamatory posts and disclose the identities of his Facebook followers who made threats against the attorney.

Key Takeaways:

  • The SCA ruled that freedom of expression on social media does not protect individuals who post defamatory material, including death threats, against others.
  • The court found that the farmer's Facebook posts, which accused the attorney of targeting white farmers, constituted a smear campaign and led to harassment and death threats against the attorney.
  • The high court ordered the farmer to remove the posts and disclose the identities of his Facebook followers who made threats against the attorney.
  • The SCA upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmer was not exempt from disclosing the identities of his followers due to the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) or the right to freedom of expression.
  • The court stated that the right to freedom of expression has limits, and one obvious limit is when its exercise encroaches into the domain of another person's rights.
  • The attorney, Pieter Strydom, is an insolvency practitioner who represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and its financial agent, Unigro Financial Services.
  • The bank provides loans to farmers, subject to agreed terms and conditions, which include mortgaging their farms as collateral.
  • The farmer, Francois Harman, fell into arrears with payments and accused Strydom of being the cause of his problems on Facebook.
  • Harman's Facebook posts led to a slew of vitriolic postings from different persons, including death threats against Strydom.

Statistics:

  • No specific statistics were provided in the source material.

Sources:

  • Supreme Court of Appeal
  • Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA)

Read more