Social Media and the Law

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have become an integral part of our everyday lives and have an important role to play in our social environment and help us keep in touch with others and stay informed of events around the world. Yet despite many of the benefits of social media platforms, these platforms also create opportunity for abuse and often bring out the worst in people, often without thought as to the consequences of their action.

Many people lose sight of the fact that the moment something is posted on social media sites, it is considered “published” and is therefore subject to the laws applicable to traditional media, such as newspapers. Accordingly, claims for defamation and hate speech as well as dismissal or disciplinary action for social media misconduct become very real possibilities.

Defamation

Defamation can be defined as the wrongful, intentional publication of words or behaviour in relation to another person which has the effect of injuring his status, good name or reputation.

Our courts have recently set a new legal precedent after it granted a Facebook user an interdict preventing a friend from posting about his personal life on the platform after she defamed him thereon.

In another case a woman was awarded R40,000 in damages after claiming that her former husband and his new wife were bad-mouthing her on Facebook. The judge found that although the former husband was not the author of the postings, he was tagged in and knew about them and allowed his name to be coupled with that of his new wife thus creating liability jointly with the author of the postings.

Hate Speech

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is prohibited because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.

Although freedom of expression is a constitutional right, it is not an absolute right. If what you say, or publish via social media platforms, has a negative impact on the rights of another, then your right to freedom of expression may be limited.

Dismissal

Disciplinary action, including dismissal for social media conduct have increased drastically over the past few years often following on the heel of comments made or posted on social media sites by employees. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) have dealt with several of these cases where the dismissal was found to be fair based on the evidence garnered from the social media sites.

Some of the grounds for dismissals have included derogatory Facebook status updates, an employee criticising management, criticising the employer, employees using social media to convey internal matters of the business to former employees, etc.

Take note

What should you take note of when using social media to avoid legal or disciplinary action arising from your conduct on these social platforms?

  • The most common defence against defamation is that the publication was true and in the public interest. Make sure about your facts before posting anything and ensure that you can back your comments with substantiating evidence and factual information. Accordingly, making a comment about a friend on a matter that is not in public interest could be defamatory even if it is true.
  • Regularly check your social media profiles to ensure that your name is not being linked to defamatory statements of others.
  • Do not post anything which could be regarded as incitement to cause harm based on race, religion, ethnic background, gender, sexual preference etc.
  • Adhere to the social media strategy and policies of your workplace. Find out what these are, and if these are not in place, keep the following guidelines in mind:
    • Keep posts legal, ethical and respectful.
    • Do not engage in online activities which could harm the reputation of the company.
    • Do not disclose any confidential or business information of the company.
    • Do not discuss colleagues, managers or information pertaining to the company.

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether you would be willing to say something out loud in a room full of people or colleagues. If the answer is no, then you shouldn’t consider posting it on social media.

September 30, 2013
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest