The conditions of illegality and intent are considered to be fulfilled as soon as a person has proved the publication of a defamatory statement. In this context, the court stated that « if a plaintiff concludes that a defendant has issued a defamatory statement about him, it is presumed that the publication was both illegal and intentional. A defendant who wishes to avoid liability for defamation must then invoke a defense that refutes the illegality or intent. The court stated this in Khumalo v. Holomisa [2002] ZACC 12; 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC). Today, we have different platforms through which we can express ourselves, and we have the right to do so. However, we must carefully balance our right to freedom of expression with the rights of others, their dignity and reputation. In doing so, we must be careful not to overcome the restrictions imposed on our freedom of expression, as this can lead to defamation of another person`s reputation and reputation. What do I need to prove to have passed my defamation lawsuit? The three main elements of defamation are: illegality, intent and publication. What are the lawsuits against a defamation lawsuit? For the purposes of the above description, an injured party must prove the existence of three essential elements (« essentialia » – the minimum requirements) for the injured party to succeed in bringing an action for defamation, namely the following: for this reason, cases of defamation of character are always complicated and the courts have the difficult task of weighing two types of personality rights, to achieve a fair result. and reasonable for both parties. To put it simply, yes, if it`s defamatory in nature, you could end up in court to face a lawsuit.

Defamation can be considered any illegal and intentional publication of words or behavior towards another person that violates or degrades his or her status, reputation, character or reputation. It would be easy to continue blaming anonymous and no-profile picture bots online, but it`s no longer that simple. More and more people are falling into this trap of online defamation by believing that they can say what they want online, without any real consequences. What objections can the other party use to justify your defamation claims? It follows from the foregoing that an action for defamation is complex in nature, since it is necessary to maintain a delicate balance between the fundamental rights of the parties concerned and the examination of those rights in relation to what the company considers acceptable, in the alternative. Anyone who intends to make a publication or statement that could influence another would therefore be advised, although the ever-changing morality in modern society may represent some relaxation in terms of the right to freedom of expression, the constitutional right to the dignity and good reputation of an individual might still prevail over the opinion of a modern world. Keep in mind that these are just objections you can raise for the court to consider – that doesn`t mean they`re watertight. You can still be held liable for defamation, even if you believe your statement is true and in the public interest. The CCMA has heard numerous cases of employees posting information that casts a negative light on their employer`s reputation and, as a result, have been fired or posted about a company`s internal affairs and have been fired. In 2011, there was a case involving two employees who wrote defamatory remarks about their boss to everyone on Facebook, and because their Facebook privacy settings did not restrict access, the comments were considered in the public domain and they were beaten with a defamation lawsuit. In 2018, an SAPS officer was fired after posting violent remarks about white South Africans on the Facebook page of EFF leader Julius Malema. The Labour Court ruled that « there is no doubt that the dismissal was a fair sanction ». The first defense often invoked by the media when faced with a defamation lawsuit is that the published statement is true and that its publication is in the public interest.

A news house or journalist could also raise the associated defense of public media privilege if it is determined that the statement was indeed false. In this case, the defendant must assert and prove that he had reason to believe that the statement was true and that he had taken reasonable steps to verify its accuracy and that the publication was appropriate accordingly. A person against whom an action for defamation has been brought has certain objections at his disposal. These objections are intended to refute the existence of any of the requirements listed above. A defendant must therefore assert and prove that a statement was not defamatory in nature or that it was not false because it was reasonable and justified.