The government or an organ of state is incapable of being defamed, and therefore not entitled to interdict publication of any material it perceives to be defamatory. The state should not use the courts as a means to muzzle or stifle the freedom of its citizens to criticise government, no matter how harsh it may
In a defamation dispute between two politicians (the former and the subsequent mayor of Johannesburg) the incumbent mayor sued for defamation damages for remarks about him. At the same time he applied for a court interdict ordering the respondent to retract the offending remarks, to refrain from repeating them, and to issue an unconditional apology
The Johannesburg High Court discussed the balance between the constitutional right of freedom of expression and the required respect for inherent dignity ‘to all human beings’. The defendant argued the allegedly defamatory statements made about the plaintiff were true and in the public interest.
It is for the defendant in a defamation claim to establish
Extraordinarily, the English Supreme Court had to decide whether the words ‘he tried to strangle me’ used on a Facebook post by a woman regarding her ex-husband meant that ‘he tried to kill me’ and damaged his reputation, hence the defamation claim.
The lower court, after an analysis of dictionary meanings of the word ‘strangle’,
The Johannesburg High Court discussed the balance between the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the required respect for inherent dignity ‘to all human beings’.
The defendant in Mostert v Nash argued the allegedly defamatory statements made about the plaintiff were true and in the public interest.
It is for the defendant in a
A US company was sued for misappropriating trade secrets relating to a medical device and poaching a number of employees. The company was insured in terms of an advertising and personal injury section of its commercial general liability policy, and it attempted to allege that there was a claim for implicit defamation obliging the insurers
If an interdict is sought preventing the future publication of alleged defamatory matter, the facts upon which the allegation is based must be clear and it must be clear that the defendant has no defence.
If the defendant sets up evidence of a defence such as truth and public interest or fair comment, the interdict
The wife in a couple who were both dentists posted a phony social media review about a competing dentist accusing him of being unprofessional and providing terrible care.
When they were sued for defamation they tried to claim an indemnity under their personal homeowners’ insurance policy.
The court refused to grant them the indemnity because
Social media is not immune to defamation laws. More and more, courts locally and around the world have come to the aid of those who are the subject of defamatory statements made on Twitter and Facebook. The danger of social media is that it’s so easy to tweet before you think.
To avoid getting caught
If you’re defamed, try and get a retraction or an apology. Don’t try to get a judgment.
Courtney Love won her case because the jury found that although the tweet she sent suggesting that her attorney had been “bought off” was false, she did not know it was untrue.
The lawyer suing her had