Social media has become a powerful tool for sharing opinions, frustrations, and even business disputes. But in South Africa, posting on platforms like Facebook can have serious legal consequences. A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has made it clear: freedom of expression is not unlimited, especially when it harms another person’s dignity, reputation, or safety.
The Case in a Nutshell
In Harman v Strydom, the Court was asked to consider whether urgent court orders against a man who posted defamatory Facebook comments were fair.
- The background:
Mr Harman had defaulted on a loan with the Land Bank. After judgment was taken against him, he published several Facebook posts accusing a Pretoria lawyer, Mr Strydom, of unethical behaviour. These posts attracted hateful and even threatening comments from other users. - What happened next:
Mr Strydom applied for an urgent protection order, which the High Court granted. The order required Mr Harman to remove the posts and, provisionally, to provide details of the Facebook users who joined in with defamatory comments. - On appeal:
Mr Harman argued that the orders were unfair and violated his constitutional right to be heard. He also claimed that he could not comply because the information was protected by privacy laws.
What the Supreme Court of Appeal Decided
The SCA disagreed with Mr Harman and upheld the orders.
- Right to be heard was not violated
The Court pointed out that Mr Harman had several options: he could have applied for leave to appeal, asked for reconsideration, or sought rescission of the order. His failure to act meant he could not argue that his rights had been denied. - Privacy law does not protect defamatory posts
The Court dismissed Mr Harman’s argument that POPIA or the constitutional right to privacy prevented him from disclosing details of other Facebook users. Privacy protections cannot be used as a shield for spreading defamatory content online. - Freedom of expression has limits
The Court found that Mr Harman’s posts crossed the line, infringing on Mr Strydom’s rights to dignity, safety, and reputation.
Why This Matters for You
- Think before you post: What you say online is not immune from legal action. Defamation, harassment, or threats can result in court orders — sometimes obtained urgently and without notice to you.
- Freedom of speech is not absolute: While you have the right to express yourself, this right is limited when it infringes on others’ constitutional rights.
- Business owners and professionals are especially at risk: Defamatory posts about a company, its directors, or its employees can damage reputation and lead to costly litigation.
Key Takeaway
The SCA’s ruling is a clear warning: social media is not a law-free zone. Online conduct is judged by the same legal standards that apply offline. If your posts harm someone else’s dignity, safety, or reputation, you could face swift and expensive legal consequences.
