Quote of the week

It is clear that no legitimate objective is advanced by excluding domestic workers from COIDA.  If anything, their exclusion has a significant stigmatising effect which entrenches patterns of disadvantage based on race, sex and gender…. In considering those who are most vulnerable or most in need, a court should take cognisance of those who fall at the intersection of compounded vulnerabilities due to intersecting oppression based on race, sex, gender, class and other grounds.  To allow this form of state-sanctioned inequity goes against the values of our newly constituted society namely human dignity, the achievement of equality and ubuntu.  To exclude this category of individuals from the social security scheme established by COIDA is manifestly unreasonable.

Victor AJ
Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others (CCT306/19) [2020] ZACC 24 (19 November 2020)
13 June 2007

Free speech and defamation in the Blogosphere

When mystery Rentboy “Skye” started publishing allegations of intimate sessions with several well known South Africans on his Blog, many people – including dear Patricia de Lille – wanted to know why this kind of anonymous slandering was not outlawed.

There is an interesting article in today’s Business Day dealing with this question. It points out – as I have done elsewhere – that the ordinary laws of defamation applies to those who slander others on the Internet but that it would not always be possible to find those people when they act anonymously. Normally one would then be able to go after the company who facilitated the publishing of the alleged defamatory statements, but this is more difficult on the Internet.

The article points towards section 75 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 , which protects service providers who host Blogs and websites from defamation suits.

The section states that such a service provider is not liable for damages arising from data stored at the request of the recipient of the service, as long as the service provider:

  • does not have actual knowledge that the content of the Blog is defamatory; or
  • is not aware of what is written on the Blog at all; and
  • immediately removes the material or disables access to a Blog once the service provider receives a notice from an aggrieved party about the defamatory statements.

If a service provider takes down material that is not defamatory, such a service provider will not be liable to the Blogger for any damages. This means there is an incentive for a service provider to be “rather safe than sorry” and to take down material – even if it is unclear whether the material is really defamatory or not.

At the same time the section is helpful because it prevents pre-publication censorship. This leaves the Blogosphere relatively free and unregulated because it does not require service providers to act as policemen of the content of Blogs or websites that they host.

We can continue to write what we like until some pesky politician or judge gets upset and sends a removal notice. We can then alert the rest of the Blogosphere and the mainstream media and draw attention to the alleged defamatory remarks. This will almost always backfire and may well result in more harm to the person complaining, than if he or she had just let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe that is why they call the Blogosphere a democratic space?

I think this also means that if one links to another site that might contain defamatory statements, one will not be liable. One’s service provider may however be asked to take down the link and will have a right to do so.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest