LCR4805 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 (835374 ) -
DUE 12 August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, A Critical Legal Analysis of Defamation and the Protection of Personal Information Act
This essay answers two alternative legal questions on defamation and the use of personal
information in the age of cyberspace. Question 1 critically assesses the liability of an individual
for defamatory content on social media and defenses available. Question 2 discusses the use of
geolocation data by a mobile app under South Africa's Protection of Personal Information Act,
2013 with particular reference to the concepts of "personal information," "processing," and
the legality of the latter.
Question 1: Defamation
a) Liability of Mary to a claim of defamation
Defamation under South African law is the wrongful and intentional publication of a
statement against another person that tends to injure his good name and reputation. In
order to bring a claim for defamation, John would need to prove
three fundamental elements, namely publication, wrongfulness, and animus injuriandi (intent to
defame).
First, publication requires the communication of the defamatory statement to a third person.
Mary's leaving the charge on John's public Facebook page, which is accessible
to many individuals and subsequently received "many negative comments," clearly satisfies this
requirement. Social media posts are a form of publication with the capacity for dissemination to
many and immediately, and with the possibility of greatly amplifying the harm inflicted.
Secondly, wrongfulness is confirmed where the statement is objectively defamatory. The test for
wrongfulness is whether a reasonable person having ordinary intelligence would regard the
statement as reducing the plaintiff's reputation in the opinion of right-thinking persons generally.
Mary's assertion that John is a "thief and a fraudster" is a serious and unqualified allegation of
criminal and dishonest conduct. Such a statement, being false, by its very nature is defamatory
and would of necessity cause harm to the reputation of John as a businessman with an
investment firm. That the posting harmed John's business "financially" is tangible evidence
of harm to his good reputation.
Finally, animus injuriandi is subjective intent to defame, i.e., intent to harm the plaintiff's
reputation. This may be concluded from the nature of the statement itself and the
circumstances under which it was published. In this case, Mary's reason of "spite" and
"anger" after having been divorced by John without her own consent clearly shows that she targe
ted John's reputation. In South African law, once the plaintiff has proven that there was a
defamatory statement that was published, wrongfulness and animus
injuriandi automatically follow. The burden of proof is then on the defendant (Mary)
to plead a defence to displace such presumptions. On the clear facts, Mary's
actions would appear to meet all the conditions for an effective claim in defamation against her.
b) Defences potentially available to Mary
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 (835374 ) -
DUE 12 August 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, A Critical Legal Analysis of Defamation and the Protection of Personal Information Act
This essay answers two alternative legal questions on defamation and the use of personal
information in the age of cyberspace. Question 1 critically assesses the liability of an individual
for defamatory content on social media and defenses available. Question 2 discusses the use of
geolocation data by a mobile app under South Africa's Protection of Personal Information Act,
2013 with particular reference to the concepts of "personal information," "processing," and
the legality of the latter.
Question 1: Defamation
a) Liability of Mary to a claim of defamation
Defamation under South African law is the wrongful and intentional publication of a
statement against another person that tends to injure his good name and reputation. In
order to bring a claim for defamation, John would need to prove
three fundamental elements, namely publication, wrongfulness, and animus injuriandi (intent to
defame).
First, publication requires the communication of the defamatory statement to a third person.
Mary's leaving the charge on John's public Facebook page, which is accessible
to many individuals and subsequently received "many negative comments," clearly satisfies this
requirement. Social media posts are a form of publication with the capacity for dissemination to
many and immediately, and with the possibility of greatly amplifying the harm inflicted.
Secondly, wrongfulness is confirmed where the statement is objectively defamatory. The test for
wrongfulness is whether a reasonable person having ordinary intelligence would regard the
statement as reducing the plaintiff's reputation in the opinion of right-thinking persons generally.
Mary's assertion that John is a "thief and a fraudster" is a serious and unqualified allegation of
criminal and dishonest conduct. Such a statement, being false, by its very nature is defamatory
and would of necessity cause harm to the reputation of John as a businessman with an
investment firm. That the posting harmed John's business "financially" is tangible evidence
of harm to his good reputation.
Finally, animus injuriandi is subjective intent to defame, i.e., intent to harm the plaintiff's
reputation. This may be concluded from the nature of the statement itself and the
circumstances under which it was published. In this case, Mary's reason of "spite" and
"anger" after having been divorced by John without her own consent clearly shows that she targe
ted John's reputation. In South African law, once the plaintiff has proven that there was a
defamatory statement that was published, wrongfulness and animus
injuriandi automatically follow. The burden of proof is then on the defendant (Mary)
to plead a defence to displace such presumptions. On the clear facts, Mary's
actions would appear to meet all the conditions for an effective claim in defamation against her.
b) Defences potentially available to Mary
