‘Naming and shaming’ has become a powerful tool on social media platforms to expose the illegal or unethical actions of others. Although the constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of expression may protect those who name and shame others online, this protection is not without limitations. A publication of this nature could lead to a defamation lawsuit against the originator and anyone who perpetuates the defamatory material. In this day and age of quick Google reviews, Facebook posts and Instagram comments, users should take care not to carelessly express unfounded opinions to the detriment of others.

Defamation is defined as the wrongful and intentional publication of material which has the effect of impairing the reputation of another person. In the context of social media, acts such as ‘sharing’, ‘liking’ and ‘retweeting’ a defamatory post or comment may be regarded as the perpetuation thereof. It was held in the case of Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 243 that merely being ‘tagged’ in a defamatory post could result in you sharing liability with the originator, should the court find that you were aware of the post and made no effort to dissociate yourself from it.

When determining a case of defamation against an individual, our courts strive to find the appropriate balance between the affected person’s right to human dignity and privacy, and the originator’s right to freedom of expression. With the prevalence of naming and shaming of businesses on social media, what considerations do our courts make when the affected party is a commercial entity?

In the 2016 case of Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 200, which deals with an individual’s decision to expose the unsavoury practices of an automotive parts business in several online publications, Murray AJ stated: “it is trite that not only private individuals, but also legal persona … have a right to their good name and unimpaired reputation, and that the dignitas of companies can also be infringed”. Here, the originator took to various social media platforms to warn the public that the business has a tendency of either not delivering goods after payment has been made, or that it delivers faulty goods and denies consumers of any recourse.

The Court had to determine whether the posts complained of were indeed defamatory, and, if so, whether the posts are justified in that the originator has proved that they are true and in the interest of the general public and/or constitute fair comment. It held that the following considerations are paramount to making its decision:

  • the interest of the public in being informed;
  • the manner of publication;
  • the nature and tone of the published posts;
  • the reliability of the source of the information;
  • the steps taken to verify the truth of the allegations; and
  • whether the party defamed has been given an opportunity to comment on the statements before publication.

In determining whether the publications should be deemed defamatory, the Court applied the following test: whether, in the opinion of the reasonable person with normal intelligence and development, the reputation of the business concerned has been injured. Based on this, the publications were deemed defamatory.

The publications failed to meet the first ground of justification (truthfulness), as the facts upon which the allegations were based were not proved with reliable evidence but were mostly based on allegations made by other individuals. This resulted in the second ground of justification (public interest) not being met either, as a defamatory publication which is untrue or only partly true can never be in the interest of the public.

To meet the final ground of justification (fair comment), the Court held that the following four requirements need to be met:

  • that the defamation amounts to comment and to the assertion of an independent fact (in the eyes of the reasonable person);
  • that the comment is fair (based on the convictions of the community);
  • that the facts on which the comment is based must be true and known to the party referred to in the publication; and
  • that these facts are in the interest of the public.

The Court found that publications failed to meet the final ground of justification in that they amount to nothing other than conjectures.  The originator was subsequently ordered to remove his posts and to pay the costs of the suit.

In the recent case of Bool Smuts and Another v Herman Botha (887/20) [2022] ZASCA 3, the Supreme Court of Appeal had to decide not on whether a publication is to be deemed defamatory, but whether it infringed a commercial business owner’s right to privacy. The originator, a wildlife conservationist, posted photos of dead animals in cage traps located on a commercial farm. Coupled with the photos, he posted the name and contact details of the owner of the farm, along with the address of the farm. The farm owner instituted an urgent Application in the High Court, which ordered the removal of the farm owner’s personal and business details from the post. The High Court held that the public interest lay in the topic, not in the identity of the farm owner and the particulars of his business.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the decision by the High Court and held that it is indeed in the interest of the public to link the unethical and inhumane act to the commercial entity responsible for the act. It held further that the farm owner had no legitimate expectation of privacy in this instance as the contact details and business information included in the post was already in the public domain.

Although the farm owner based his suit solely on the infringement of his right to privacy, the Court considered the exact same grounds of justification as the Court in Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg did. In doing so, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the farm owner could not be permitted to unjustifiably limit the originator’s right to freedom of expression and his entitlement to make a fair comment on the facts that are true and related to matters of public interests.

The Court emphasised that the right to freedom of expression in section 16 of the Bill of Rights enables every citizen to express himself or herself and to receive information and ideas. The Constitution recognises that individuals in our society need to be able to hear, form and express opinions freely, on a wide range of topics. The Court further commented that the purpose of public debate is to say things that others find different and difficult – public debate does not require politeness.

Even though the above two cases had complete opposite outcomes, a trend in our courts’ methodology is apparent in both instances. Each matter demonstrated that our courts will carefully scrutinise cases of defamation to ensure that one does not get away with posting half-truths or unwarranted complaints in order to harm a business. It is also evident, however, that commercial entities acting unlawfully or unethically are by no means shielded from being named and shamed online by individuals. Members of the public have the freedom to decide which commercial entities they support and which they do not, they also have the freedom to make this decision in an open and transparent environment. Our courts are clearly aware that this freedom of choice can only be properly exercised if mechanisms exist to lay bare the nefarious activities of commercial entities, and that such mechanisms must be protected in the right circumstances.

Contact us today for more information on the consequences of naming and shaming commercial entities online.

About the author

We use cookies to analyse website usage and other technical information to improve the functionality of our website   View more
Cookies settings
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookie name Active
This policy informs you how we will use your personal information, by using our services and/or website you consent to our use of your personal information for the purposes described herein.
    • Personal Information means information relating to an identifiable, living, natural person, and where it is applicable, an identifiable, existing juristic person, including, but not limited to, name and surname; identification number; physical address; contact information such as an email address and telephone number.
    • Data Subject means the person to whom personal information relates.
    • Responsible Party means a public or private body or any other person which, alone or in conjunction with others, determines the purpose of and means for processing personal information.
    • Identification Information means information that can be used to identify the data subject.
    • Compliance Information means information that is needed by Dunsters Attorneys for us to be compliant with relevant laws including the Financial Intelligence Centre Act “FICA” and regulatory standards and government orders such as Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Know-Your-Client (KYC) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF).
    • Communication Information includes all correspondence such as emails and messages.
    • Financial information means any information relating to payment of invoices, including but not limited to banking information and account details
  • We may collect website usage and other technical information such as details of your visits to our website through cookies and other tracking technologies. Cookies are small data files stored by your computer to help improve functionality or tailor information to provide visitors with more relevant pages.
  • The information we collect may include information provided to us through your initial correspondence, possibly including:
    • Name and Surname
    • Email address
    • Contact numbers; and/or
  • This may also include information that we may have requested, and you subsequently provided, including, but not limited to:
    • Compliance Information
    • Identification Information
    • Communication Information
    • Financial Information
    • Other Personal Information
  • Reasons for collection of your personal information will be explained to you when we collect/request the information. We may request certain personal information to comply with global industry regulatory standards, local regulatory standards or government orders.
  • You, the data subject, consent to our use of your information in line with this privacy policy and/or any terms of engagement you may sign with us. If you wish to revoke your consent, please email enquiries@dunster.co.za .
  • We acquire information from you directly, save where accessible from publicly available sources.
  • Information may be collected through various platforms, including:
    • Our onboarding process with you
    • Email engagement
    • Telephonic engagement
    • In-person engagement
    • Cookies
    • Your personal information may be collected and saved on our system for the following purposes:
      • To enable us to provide legal services.
      • To send news, updates and marketing information.
      • To review job applications.
      • To comply with legal requirements
    • Your personal information will not be used for the following purposes:
      • We will never use your personal information for direct marketing purposes without your consent (you may opt-out of our newsletter at any time)
      • We will never disclose your personal information to another third party without permission from yourself, unless it is required for fulfilment of our legal services or as mandated by law.
  • Right of the data subject under the POPI Act include, but are not limited to:
    • Having access to their recorded personal information
    • Requesting correction or amendment to their personal information and to have information corrected or amended
    • Requesting deletion or destruction of personal information from the responsible party’s system
    • Objecting to the processing of personal information
    • Submitting a complaint to the Regulator regarding the alleged interference with the protection of the personal information of any data subject or submitting a complaint to the Regulator (POPIAComplaints@inforegulator.org.za)
    • Instituting civil proceedings regarding the alleged interference with the protection of their personal information.
  • We will retain your information for the period required by law.
  • Where we retain your contact information for any period other than may be prescribed by law, we retain this information to keep you updated of our various offerings and news. By not unsubscribing from newsletter, you consent to us retaining your personal information on our records indefinitely, for the purposes explained above, including, to keep you informed about news and updates pertaining to Dunsters Attorneys Inc.
  • We take reasonable technical and organisational measures to secure the integrity of your personal information and use accepted technological standards to prevent unauthorised access to or disclosure of your personal information, and protect your personal information from misuse, loss, alteration and destruction.
  • The measures that are taken in order to protect your personal information include:
    • Physical measures: access to physical copies of your information is controlled using strict protocol.
    • Electronic measures: firewalls and password protection
  • While we will take all reasonable steps to ensure the security of your data and personal information according to industry standards, it is not possible to guarantee the complete security of all information provided at all times.
  • We will notify you as soon as reasonably practicable of any breach of security, loss of or damage to your personal information.
  • Data subjects are responsible for taking reasonable precautions to safeguard their personal information.
  • Although we endeavour to ensure your information is as correct as possible, you are responsible for notifying us of any changes to your data or personal information in respect of the services provided and/or your account with us.
  • We will not be held liable for losses of any nature which are due to incorrect data or personal information provided by users in respect of the service provided.
  • We will not be held liable for any loss or damage arising from a security breach or disclosure of your personal information or data, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
  • We shall not be liable for any damage or interruptions caused by any computer viruses or other malicious code that may affect your computer or other equipment, or any phishing, spoofing or other attack.
  • If you suspect that your personal information has been compromised, or that there has been unauthorised use of your email address by any person, or any other violations to the security of the website, please contact us.
Save settings
Cookies settings