LCR4805
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 12 AUGUST 2025
, Selected Private and Criminal Law Principles of the Internet
Question 1
a) Liability of Mary for Defamation (10 marks)
Under South African law, defamation is the unlawful publication of a statement about a
person that has the effect of injuring their reputation.
1. Publication
2. Of a defamatory statement
3. Concerning the plaintiff
4. Wrongfulness
5. Intent (animus iniuriandi)
Application to the Facts:
1. Publication: Mary posted the statement on John’s Facebook wall, which is
accessible to others. This constitutes publication to third parties.
2. Defamatory Statement: Calling John a "thief and fraudster" clearly harms his
dignitas and reputation. Such accusations imply dishonesty and criminality,
which are objectively defamatory.
3. Reference to Plaintiff: The statement was posted on John’s own profile,
explicitly referring to him. There is no ambiguity regarding identity.
4. Wrongfulness: The statement prima facie infringes John’s right to reputation.
Unless a defence applies, wrongfulness is presumed.
5. Intention: Mary posted the statement in a fit of spite, suggesting deliberate
intent to injure John’s reputation.
Thus, Mary satisfies all the elements of defamation. The harm to John’s business —
including loss of clients and reputation — strengthens his claim for both general and
special damages.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 12 AUGUST 2025
, Selected Private and Criminal Law Principles of the Internet
Question 1
a) Liability of Mary for Defamation (10 marks)
Under South African law, defamation is the unlawful publication of a statement about a
person that has the effect of injuring their reputation.
1. Publication
2. Of a defamatory statement
3. Concerning the plaintiff
4. Wrongfulness
5. Intent (animus iniuriandi)
Application to the Facts:
1. Publication: Mary posted the statement on John’s Facebook wall, which is
accessible to others. This constitutes publication to third parties.
2. Defamatory Statement: Calling John a "thief and fraudster" clearly harms his
dignitas and reputation. Such accusations imply dishonesty and criminality,
which are objectively defamatory.
3. Reference to Plaintiff: The statement was posted on John’s own profile,
explicitly referring to him. There is no ambiguity regarding identity.
4. Wrongfulness: The statement prima facie infringes John’s right to reputation.
Unless a defence applies, wrongfulness is presumed.
5. Intention: Mary posted the statement in a fit of spite, suggesting deliberate
intent to injure John’s reputation.
Thus, Mary satisfies all the elements of defamation. The harm to John’s business —
including loss of clients and reputation — strengthens his claim for both general and
special damages.
