“Believing that one pursues a worthy cause in the public interest, does not justify publishing false statements about another party,” acting Judge Berry wrote in his ruling last week.
“Believing that one pursues a worthy cause in the public interest, does not justify publishing false statements about another party … the publication of defamatory statements are prima facie [at first sight] wrongful.”
While courts should be slow in granting final interdicts silencing people, such an interdict would not prevent Msabe from publishing statements that were true and in the public interest. It would only prevent him from making false statements, the judge said.
Basically, it is saying anyone in South Africa has the right to free speech and opinions, but then opinions should be framed as such, and if you’re going to allege that any individual or company has committed a crime, you should provide the contextual evidence with that claim. You cannot allege without any context or by providing false evidence. There is nothing new about this really, and it applies to any utterance, and is nothing unique to social media.
Both parties are protected by law: If the allegation is made with context and valid (in good faith) evidence, the poster would be protected. The targeted individual or company, though, also has a right to protection if that evidence is false.
I don’t know the actual merits of this case (where the photo of the worn tyre came from) but a post is judged by what is published, as that is how the public themselves perceive the post (only on what they read).
It’s also a warning to anyone in South Africa to check before just reposting information that may be false, or even worse, when it is calculated misinformation. Social media is not something separate from normal life – you are your own newspaper editor, and publishing a public post is a public utterance, and not a private conversation.
I’m just hoping this gets applied to politicians as well, outside of parliament!