Freedom of expression has limits, Supreme Court rules in social media

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.

- ZELDA VENTER

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.

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.