, LCR4805
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 17 AUGUST 2026
QUESTION 1
ADVICE TO MR. JOHN REGARDING THE FAKE SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILE AND DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS
a) What should Mr. John do to remove the fake profile from the social media platform?
Mr. John must follow a structured, multi-layered approach to secure the removal of the fake profile
and the defamatory content. The process involves both platform-based remedies and statutory
mechanisms under South African law.
First, Mr. John should immediately preserve all evidence. This includes taking screenshots of the
fake profile, the defamatory statements, the group linked to the profile, and any other relevant
metadata (such as the date and time of posting). As Burchell (2014:45) notes, in defamation actions
involving online content, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving publication, and digital evidence is
often the only reliable proof of the existence and timing of the offending material. Without proper
preservation, the content may be deleted by the perpetrator or the platform, severely hampering
any subsequent legal claim.
Second, Mr. John should report the fake profile directly to the social media platform using its
internal reporting and complaint mechanisms. Most major social media platforms have clear
community standards that prohibit impersonation and harassment, and they provide user-friendly
tools for reporting such violations (Papadopoulos 2020:112). The platform’s terms of service
typically allow for the swift removal of fake profiles once verified, and Mr. John should provide his
identification documents to prove his true identity. This step is cost-effective and often yields the
quickest results, as platforms have a commercial interest in maintaining trust and safety among
their users.
Third, if the platform does not respond adequately within a reasonable time, Mr. John should issue
a formal take-down notice in terms of section 77 of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (the ECT Act). Section 77 of the ECT Act provides a statutory
mechanism for the removal of unlawful content from the internet. The notice must be in writing,
addressed to the platform (as an intermediary), and must contain sufficient detail to enable the
intermediary to identify the offending material and the grounds for its unlawfulness (Van der
Merwe et al. 2008:210). The notice must also include a statement that the complainant believes in
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 17 AUGUST 2026
QUESTION 1
ADVICE TO MR. JOHN REGARDING THE FAKE SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILE AND DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS
a) What should Mr. John do to remove the fake profile from the social media platform?
Mr. John must follow a structured, multi-layered approach to secure the removal of the fake profile
and the defamatory content. The process involves both platform-based remedies and statutory
mechanisms under South African law.
First, Mr. John should immediately preserve all evidence. This includes taking screenshots of the
fake profile, the defamatory statements, the group linked to the profile, and any other relevant
metadata (such as the date and time of posting). As Burchell (2014:45) notes, in defamation actions
involving online content, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving publication, and digital evidence is
often the only reliable proof of the existence and timing of the offending material. Without proper
preservation, the content may be deleted by the perpetrator or the platform, severely hampering
any subsequent legal claim.
Second, Mr. John should report the fake profile directly to the social media platform using its
internal reporting and complaint mechanisms. Most major social media platforms have clear
community standards that prohibit impersonation and harassment, and they provide user-friendly
tools for reporting such violations (Papadopoulos 2020:112). The platform’s terms of service
typically allow for the swift removal of fake profiles once verified, and Mr. John should provide his
identification documents to prove his true identity. This step is cost-effective and often yields the
quickest results, as platforms have a commercial interest in maintaining trust and safety among
their users.
Third, if the platform does not respond adequately within a reasonable time, Mr. John should issue
a formal take-down notice in terms of section 77 of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (the ECT Act). Section 77 of the ECT Act provides a statutory
mechanism for the removal of unlawful content from the internet. The notice must be in writing,
addressed to the platform (as an intermediary), and must contain sufficient detail to enable the
intermediary to identify the offending material and the grounds for its unlawfulness (Van der
Merwe et al. 2008:210). The notice must also include a statement that the complainant believes in
