642:
333:
618:, the High Court dismissed an application to compel disclosure of the sources of an allegedly defamatory article on the basis of the importance of press freedom. Furthermore, the absence of adequate safeguards to maintain the confidentiality of journalists' sources was cited by the Constitutional Court as one of the respects in which the
149:
of organs of state to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the right to freedom of expression, and the negative obligation resting on private entities not to interfere with or diminish the enjoyment of that right. It was thus held that a billboard agency had acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally by
637:
on the basis that it was not in the interests of justice for those portions to be kept secret. The court has subsequently invalidated legislative provisions that prohibited the publication of the particulars of divorce actions, required absolute confidentiality in respect of asylum applications, and
498:
to excuse the publication of defamatory allegations in the press in circumstances where publication was not unreasonable given, amongst other things, the tone of the allegations and the reliability of the sources on which the allegations were based. Whilst the court's finding has been the subject of
125:
The phrase "freedom of expression" unambiguously extends constitutional protection to expressive conduct beyond verbal communication, with those forms of expression specifically enumerated in section 16(1) generally being regarded as constituting the core of protected expression. Forms of expression
767:
recognised that commercial speech constitutes protected expression. Whilst cautioning against "artificially created divisions between the value of different forms of speech", the courts have concluded that limitations on commercial speech are more readily justifiable than limitations on other forms
750:
beer on T-shirts sold for profit was found not to have resulted in a substantial likelihood of economic or trade harm to the trademark owner, and thus did not amount to trademark infringement. Whether the unauthorised use of a trademark amounts to protected expression was held to be central to this
619:
779:
imposing an absolute prohibition on billboard advertising by a third party on another's premises was struck down on the basis that less restrictive means were available to achieve the purpose of the by-law. Contrastingly, a requirement of prior consent for the erection of billboards visible from a
276:
ruled that a prohibition on the broadcasting of material that was "likely to prejudice relations between sections of the population" was unconstitutional, as the prohibited expression was not confined to the categories listed in section 16(2), and the limitation imposed was unjustifiable given the
271:
constitutes incitement to cause harm. It has been held that such harm may be physical, emotional or psychological in nature. Some commentators have suggested that judicial treatment of section 16(2)(c) has tended to neglect the incitement requirement, instead requiring that expression must itself
257:
consequently had to be justified in terms of section 36 of the
Constitution. In upholding the prohibition, the court found that the outright ban served the legitimate objective of protecting the dignity of and preventing harm to children, and that no less restrictive means existed to achieve this
96:
described the right to freedom of expression as being "part of a web of mutually supporting rights" which "together may be conceived as underpinning an entitlement to participate in an ongoing process of communicative interaction that is of both instrumental and intrinsic value". Similarly, the
116:
of thought control, censorship and enforced conformity to governmental theories, freedom of expression — the free and open exchange of ideas — is no less important than it is in the United States of
America. It could actually be contended with much force that the public interest in the open
754:
Commentators have suggested that generous interpretation of the existing defences to a claim of copyright infringement would ordinarily be sufficient to give due regard to free speech considerations. The courts have further remarked that public interest, and the related freedom, duty and
211:
The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including—
312:
aimed at the promotion or propagation of hatred, in order to be prohibited. A prohibition on speech that was merely "hurtful" was found to be impermissibly vague and accordingly an unconstitutional infringement of the section 16(1) right. The
Gauteng Local Division of the High Court in
474:
position that the plaintiff need not prove falsehood to succeed with a claim for defamation was a reasonable and justifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression, given the countervailing right to reputation, which is to be regarded as an incident of the broader right to
130:, which the courts have deemed to hold marginal value in light of the philosophical underpinnings of free speech protections, are often described as existing on the "periphery" of the right to freedom of expression, and thus being capable of more extensive limitation as compared to
182:
confirmed that the categories of expression enumerated in this section fall outside of the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. Any regulation of such expression is thus not regarded as a limitation of the right afforded by section 16(1).
780:
street or public place has been held to advance the legitimate, substantial and pressing purpose of promoting traffic safety and urban aesthetics. Public policy considerations featured prominently as part of the SCA's rationale for concluding in
398:, which has as its aim the protection of the moral authority of the judicial process, was not unconstitutional, provided that the offence was construed narrowly to encompass only that conduct which, viewed contextually, was likely to damage the
252:
did not fall within the ambit of any of the section 16(2) exceptions, and thus constituted protected expression, albeit expression of virtually no cognisable value. A criminal prohibition on the possession of child pornography contained in the
111:
Freedom of expression, especially when gauged in conjunction with its accompanying fundamental freedoms, is of the utmost importance in the kind of open and democratic society the
Constitution has set as our aspirational norm. Having regard to
721:
broadcast concerning alleged malpractice in a public hospital despite the infringement of the privacy of hospital staff. Similarly, an application for an order preventing further commentary on the hospital records of former
Minister of Health
563:. Justice Mokgoro in a minority judgment, however, reasoned that the prohibition further contravened the right to freedom of expression, which embraced the "right to receive, hold and consume expressions transmitted by others". The Court in
669:
is demonstrable and substantial and there is a real risk that the prejudice will occur if publication takes place". This finding has been interpreted as support for a presumption against the constitutionality of prior restraints and
741:
has been recognised as a leading judgment on the relationship between trademark law and freedom of expression in
English-speaking jurisdictions. The majority held that a provision of the Trade Marks Act that sought to prevent the
558:
struck down a prohibition on the "possession of indecent or obscene material" contained in the apartheid-era
Indecent and Obscene Photographic Matter Act on the basis that the prohibition contravened the constitutional
266:
Section 16(2)(c) of the
Constitution is relatively narrow in scope. Expression is only excluded from protection if it amounts to advocacy of hatred on the basis of one or more of four listed group characteristics,
435:
of others to commit "any offence" unjustifiably limited the right to freedom of expression in so far as the provision extended beyond those offences that threaten serious harm or danger. Similarly, the court in
726:
was dismissed on the basis of her status as a public figure. The courts have, however, held that the public interest defence carries less weight if the content sought to be published is of an intimate nature.
1262:
AmaBhungane Centre for
Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others
287:
34:
of 1993. The right is not unqualified — certain forms of expression fall outside of the ambit of section 16(1), and the right is capable of limitation in accordance with the general principles of
1313:
638:
absolutely prohibited the disclosure of tax records regardless of public interest considerations. Each prohibition was found to be more restrictive than necessary to achieve its purpose.
234:
1367:
456:
and the right to freedom of expression. This determination has been impacted in the constitutional era by the importance attached to the latter right. Similarly to the position in
308:, was a justifiable limitation of the right to freedom of expression, but that the provision had to be read to require that expression be both harmful or capable of inciting harm,
187:
532:
that this is subject to the qualification that such a claim is not permissible where defamatory allegations form part of "public discourse in public-interest debates", and in
237:, and is distinguishable from the position in United States free speech jurisprudence, where reductions in the scope of protection afforded to a particular form of expression
162:
to express certain facts or views freely within the framework of its contract with the agency, and to respect the existing protection of BDS's right to freedom of expression.
196:, respectively. Whilst not without academic critique, these exclusions have received considerably little attention from the courts. The interpretation and application of the
373:
that the prohibition contained in this statute is concerned with the "conveyance of ideas" or "communication of a message". As such, the gratuitous public display of the
737:
539:
282:
390:
The constitutionality of criminalising conduct that falls within the ambit of freedom of expression has on a number of occasions been considered by the courts. In
444:
was unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised expressive conduct that fell short of creating an objectively reasonable fear of imminent violent injury.
346:
614:
that a witness may rely on the infringement of a constitutional right as a "just excuse" for declining to answer a question in civil or criminal proceedings. In
464:
rests on the defendant to establish a legitimate defence once publication of defamatory material has been proved by the plaintiff. The
Constitutional Court in
377:
was found to constitute hate speech, subject to the proviso that the display of the flag for artistic, academic or journalistic purposes was not prohibited.
793:
178:, or "advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm". The Constitutional Court in
565:
684:, the courts have, to varying degrees, permitted the broadcasting of proceedings involving matters of public interest, including the proceedings of the
290:
that prohibits hate speech in circumstances beyond those contemplated in section 16(2). The dispute arose as a result of the publication of a column by
792:
was found to be "the only way to address" the negative public health effects of smoking, particularly in light of South Africa's obligations under the
203:
In circumstances where expression is not excluded from constitutional protection, any limitation on such expression must be justified in terms of the
1537:
204:
526:
nonetheless held that this position did not unjustifiably limit the right to freedom of expression. The Constitutional Court subsequently found in
325:
constituted a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression — a conclusion which departed from the earlier Equality Court decision of
365:
Despite the explicit mention of hate speech in the form of "words" in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, the
350:
confirmed that whether or not a statement constituted hate speech was to be determined objectively. The court, applying this test, found that a
366:
665:
in favour of restricting publication would only be in the interests of justice where "the prejudice that the publication might cause to the
374:
238:
693:
38:. Application of the right to freedom of expression by the courts has had a considerable impact on, amongst other fields, South African
31:
685:
534:
528:
159:
1542:
585:
254:
35:
155:
588:
that required publications containing certain sexually explicit content to be submitted to the Film and Publication Board for
452:
The law of defamation has been conceived in South African legal literature as aiming to strike a balance between the right to
158:
prior to the expiration of the agreed flighting period. The agency bore a duty not to interfere with the platform provided to
59:
1151:
121:
is all the more important to us in this country because our democracy is not yet firmly established and must feel its way.
789:
428:
22:
596:, and was unconstitutional given the availability of less restrictive means to achieve the purpose of the prohibition.
646:
625:
The Constitutional Court has held that, as a starting point, court proceedings and records are open to the public. In
39:
746:
had to be interpreted in the manner most compatible with freedom of expression. The parodying of the trademark of
641:
499:
considerable academic debate, the degree of fault required to impose liability on mass media defendants following
840:
717:
666:
411:
399:
322:
1427:
Van Breda v Media 24 Limited and Others; National Director of Public Prosecutions v Media 24 Limited and Others
723:
697:
27:
26:. This right to freedom of expression, which is regarded as being of fundamental importance to South African
605:
175:
457:
441:
1472:
Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a SABMark International
755:
responsibility of the media, could in certain circumstances outweigh considerations regarding copyright.
461:
304:
to bestiality. The court found that expansion of the grounds of hate speech to include, amongst others,
1520:
North Central Local Council and South Central Local Council v Roundabout Outdoor (Pty) Ltd & Others
414:. Several divisions of the High Court have upheld convictions and sentences for the related offence of
170:
Section 16(2) of the Constitution provides that the right to freedom of expression does not extend to
1010:
South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another
634:
146:
118:
410:
with the court finding that the relatively drastic effect of the offence was counterbalanced by its
747:
662:
620:
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act
495:
403:
337:
317:
relied on this development as the basis for its finding that the singing of the controversial song
1334:
Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others
1064:
Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another
785:
743:
466:
305:
192:
336:
Gratuitous public display of the apartheid-era South African flag, which formerly flew from the
233:
The analysis undertaken in this regard resembles the approach to the limitation of rights under
577:
was unconstitutional, given its overbroad formulation that included premises such as theatres.
630:
395:
351:
301:
249:
127:
569:
later relied squarely on the right to freedom of expression in finding that a prohibition on
708:
560:
543:
515:
483:
318:
135:
131:
701:
593:
519:
511:
471:
359:
332:
98:
1409:
Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
347:
South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku
971:
896:
97:
importance of the right in the South African socio-historical context was emphasised by
1451:
1406:
1241:
589:
574:
416:
171:
89:
1490:
1388:
1133:
1531:
1424:
1349:
1115:
1043:
689:
610:
47:
1331:
1205:
1169:
1097:
1079:
1061:
989:
953:
935:
De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others
932:
878:
420:
without the issue of freedom of expression being raised or considered by the court.
1469:
1352:
Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a e-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape)
1295:
1277:
1259:
1223:
1187:
1025:
1007:
914:
857:
681:
659:
Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a e-TV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape)
570:
103:
707:
The right to publish has occasionally come into conflict with the countervailing
1370:
Dotcom Trading 121 (Pty) Ltd t/a Live Africa Network News v King NO & Others
629:, the court, weighing the competing considerations of freedom of expression and
291:
272:
cause, or be likely to cause, the harm in question. The Constitutional Court in
197:
676:
671:
504:
487:
453:
432:
43:
296:
151:
113:
674:
against defamatory publications, and is regarded as an attenuation of the
633:, ordered the disclosure of certain portions of a court record containing
186:
The first two categories of excluded expression have their origins in the
494:
concluded that free speech imperatives necessitated the development of a
425:
Economic Freedom Fighters v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
246:
De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division)
917:
Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others
476:
355:
1280:
Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Intelligence Services
776:
627:
Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Intelligence Services
207:
contained in section 36(1) of the Constitution, which provides that:
1493:
British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health
1391:
South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v Thatcher and Others
765:
British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health
686:
Commission of Enquiry into Cricket Match-Fixing and Related Matters
651:
Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited v National Prosecuting Authority
640:
331:
1190:
Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others
1172:
Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others
1154:
Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others
288:
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act
66:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes–
584:, it was held that an administrative scheme provided for in the
358:
who belong to the era of their Friend Hitler" as being based on
1208:
Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs
582:
Print Media South Africa v Minister of Home Affairs and Another
490:
has, however, not survived constitutional scrutiny. The SCA in
1316:
Mail and Guardian Media Ltd and Others v Chipu N.O. and Others
286:, which concerned the constitutionality of a provision of the
860:
Case and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others
522:
for defamation has been recognised by the courts. The SCA in
180:
Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority
225:(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
956:
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another
1136:
Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd
645:
The Trial of Oscar Pistorius was broadcast live from the
235:
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
79:(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
788:
was reasonable and justifiable. The ban imposed by the
546:
that affords a defence against a claim for defamation.
200:
prohibition has been significantly more controversial.
899:
BDS South Africa v Continental Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd
143:
BDS South Africa v Continental Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd
73:(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
1454:
Tshabalala-Msimang and Another v Makhanya and Others
219:(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
188:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
228:(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
58:Section 16(1) of the Constitution, located in the
738:Laugh It Off Promotions v South African Breweries
1298:Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others
1082:Moyo and Another v Minister of Police and Others
713:MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v M-Net & Another
280:Similar considerations arose in the decision of
1244:Bosasa Operation (Pty) Ltd v Basson and Another
1028:Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust
604:South African law does not recognise a blanket
540:strategic lawsuits against public participation
524:Media 24 Ltd v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd
371:Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust
283:Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission
209:
109:
64:
277:vagueness and overbreadth of the prohibition.
190:, and the United States Supreme Court case of
786:advertising and promotion of tobacco products
244:The Constitutional Court accordingly held in
85:Nature, content and implications of the right
8:
841:Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
735:The decision of the Constitutional Court in
554:The majority of the Constitutional Court in
362:and thus the prohibited ground of religion.
222:(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
794:WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
423:More recently, the Constitutional Court in
340:, has been found to constitute hate speech.
145:, the court drew a distinction between the
873:
871:
680:rule. In accordance with the principle of
566:Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions
36:South African constitutional jurisprudence
992:Afriforum and Another v Malema and Others
518:, particularly trading corporations, for
239:generally occur at the definitional stage
70:(a) freedom of the press and other media;
773:City of Cape Town v Ad Outpost (Pty) Ltd
1118:National Media Ltd and Others v Bogoshi
820:
818:
816:
814:
812:
810:
808:
804:
503:is generally regarded as being that of
76:(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
1485:
1483:
692:in relation to his involvement in the
94:Case v Minister of Safety and Security
1506:
1504:
974:Afriforum v Economic Freedom Fighters
315:Afriforum v Economic Freedom Fighters
17:Freedom of expression in South Africa
7:
354:would regard a remark referring to "
948:
946:
694:2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt
616:Bosasa Operation (Pty) Ltd v Basson
1495:[2012] 3 All SA 593 (SCA)"
827:Constitutional Law of South Africa
649:in accordance with the ruling in
394:, it was held that the offence of
14:
1411:[2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP)"
744:dilution of well-known trademarks
535:Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell
529:Reddell v Mineral Sands Resources
496:defence of reasonable publication
402:. The constitutional validity of
1393:[2005] 4 All SA 353 (C)"
375:apartheid-era South African flag
1538:Freedom of expression in Africa
592:before publication amounted to
176:incitement of imminent violence
156:Israeli occupation of Palestine
825:Woolman, S; Bishop, M (eds.).
427:ruled that a provision of the
30:, was first recognised in the
1:
1100:Khumalo and Others v Holomisa
696:, and the criminal trials of
790:Tobacco Products Control Act
661:held that the exercise of a
492:National Media Ltd v Bogoshi
216:(a) the nature of the right;
23:Constitution of South Africa
829:. Vol. 3 (2 ed.).
608:. It was, however, held in
1559:
784:that a blanket ban on the
586:Films and Publications Act
255:Films and Publications Act
166:Exclusions and limitations
667:administration of justice
438:Moyo v Minister of Police
400:administration of justice
323:Economic Freedom Fighters
205:general limitation clause
1429:2017 (2) SACR 491 (SCA)"
1048:2009 (1) SACR 276 (SCA)"
782:British American Tobacco
724:Manto Tshabalala-Msimang
274:Islamic Unity Convention
126:such as pornography and
28:constitutional democracy
1543:Society of South Africa
1120:1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)"
1084:2020 (1) SACR 373 (CC)"
1066:2021 (1) SACR 387 (CC)"
715:refused to interdict a
412:onerous burden of proof
367:Supreme Court of Appeal
1354:2007 (5) SA 540 (SCA)"
1246:2013 (2) SA 570 (GSJ)"
1138:2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA)"
994:2011 (6) SA 240 (EqC)"
654:
622:was unconstitutional.
606:journalistic privilege
544:abuse of court process
429:Riotous Assemblies Act
396:scandalising the court
341:
231:
123:
82:
1474:2006 (1) SA 144 (CC)"
1336:2023 (5) SA 319 (CC)"
1318:2013 (6) SA 367 (CC)"
1264:2021 (3) SA 246 (CC)"
1228:1996 (3) SA 562 (CC)"
1210:2012 (6) SA 443 (CC)"
1192:2003 (3) SA 345 (CC)"
1174:2023 (2) SA 68 (CC))"
1156:2023 (2) SA 404 (CC)"
1102:2002 (5) SA 401 (CC)"
958:2021 (6) SA 579 (CC)"
937:2004 (1) SA 406 (CC)"
901:2015 (1) SA 462 (GJ)"
883:2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)"
862:1996 (3) SA 617 (CC)"
688:, the questioning of
644:
335:
321:at gatherings of the
119:market-place of ideas
54:Text of section 16(1)
1522:2002 (2) SA 625 (D).
1510:2000 (2) SA 733 (C).
1456:2008 (6) SA 102 (W)"
1372:2000 (4) SA 973 (C)"
1282:2008 (5) SA 31 (CC)"
1030:2023 (4) SA 1 (SCA)"
711:. The High Court in
635:classified documents
32:Interim Constitution
1441:2002 (6) SA 714 (T)
1300:2009 (4) SA 7 (CC)"
1012:2022 (4) SA 1 (CC)"
748:Carling Black Label
404:criminal defamation
338:Castle of Good Hope
663:court's discretion
655:
653:2 All SA 446 (GP).
486:for defamation by
482:The imposition of
467:Khumalo v Holomisa
431:criminalising the
342:
327:Afriforum v Malema
306:sexual orientation
193:Brandenburg v Ohio
172:propaganda for war
21:section 16 of the
759:Commercial speech
647:Palace of Justice
631:national security
575:licensed premises
352:reasonable person
302:same-sex marriage
250:child pornography
128:commercial speech
62:, provides that:
19:is guaranteed in
1550:
1523:
1517:
1511:
1508:
1499:
1498:
1487:
1478:
1477:
1466:
1460:
1459:
1448:
1442:
1439:
1433:
1432:
1421:
1415:
1414:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1376:
1364:
1358:
1357:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1328:
1322:
1321:
1310:
1304:
1303:
1292:
1286:
1285:
1274:
1268:
1267:
1256:
1250:
1249:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1220:
1214:
1213:
1202:
1196:
1195:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1166:
1160:
1159:
1148:
1142:
1141:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1112:
1106:
1105:
1094:
1088:
1087:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1058:
1052:
1051:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1004:
998:
997:
986:
980:
979:
976:2022 (6) SA 357"
968:
962:
961:
950:
941:
940:
929:
923:
922:
919:2002 (4) SA 294"
911:
905:
904:
893:
887:
886:
875:
866:
865:
854:
848:
847:
845:
837:
831:
830:
822:
751:determination.
709:right to privacy
561:right to privacy
516:juristic persons
488:media defendants
484:strict liability
442:Intimidation Act
136:artistic freedom
132:political speech
99:Justice Kriegler
1558:
1557:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1502:
1489:
1488:
1481:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1374:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1006:
1005:
1001:
988:
987:
983:
970:
969:
965:
952:
951:
944:
931:
930:
926:
913:
912:
908:
895:
894:
890:
877:
876:
869:
856:
855:
851:
843:
839:
838:
834:
824:
823:
806:
802:
768:of expression.
761:
733:
702:Henri van Breda
698:Oscar Pistorius
602:
594:prior restraint
552:
520:general damages
512:chilling effect
470:ruled that the
462:burden of proof
450:
440:found that the
388:
383:
360:Jewish identity
264:
168:
114:our recent past
90:Justice Mokgoro
87:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1556:
1554:
1546:
1545:
1540:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1512:
1500:
1479:
1461:
1443:
1434:
1416:
1398:
1380:
1359:
1341:
1323:
1305:
1287:
1269:
1251:
1233:
1215:
1197:
1179:
1161:
1143:
1125:
1107:
1089:
1071:
1053:
1035:
1017:
999:
981:
963:
942:
924:
906:
888:
867:
849:
832:
803:
801:
798:
760:
757:
732:
729:
601:
598:
590:classification
551:
548:
542:constitute an
514:of a claim by
510:The potential
449:
446:
417:crimen injuria
406:was upheld in
387:
384:
382:
379:
300:which likened
263:
260:
230:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
167:
164:
86:
83:
81:
80:
77:
74:
71:
60:Bill of Rights
55:
52:
44:defamation law
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1555:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1533:
1521:
1516:
1513:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1494:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1475:
1473:
1465:
1462:
1457:
1455:
1447:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1430:
1428:
1420:
1417:
1412:
1410:
1402:
1399:
1394:
1392:
1384:
1381:
1373:
1371:
1363:
1360:
1355:
1353:
1345:
1342:
1337:
1335:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1317:
1309:
1306:
1301:
1299:
1291:
1288:
1283:
1281:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1263:
1255:
1252:
1247:
1245:
1237:
1234:
1229:
1227:
1226:Nel v Le Roux
1219:
1216:
1211:
1209:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1191:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1173:
1165:
1162:
1157:
1155:
1147:
1144:
1139:
1137:
1129:
1126:
1121:
1119:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1101:
1093:
1090:
1085:
1083:
1075:
1072:
1067:
1065:
1057:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1039:
1036:
1031:
1029:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1011:
1003:
1000:
995:
993:
985:
982:
977:
975:
967:
964:
959:
957:
949:
947:
943:
938:
936:
928:
925:
920:
918:
910:
907:
902:
900:
892:
889:
884:
882:
874:
872:
868:
863:
861:
853:
850:
842:
836:
833:
828:
821:
819:
817:
815:
813:
811:
809:
805:
799:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
778:
774:
769:
766:
758:
756:
752:
749:
745:
740:
739:
731:Trademark law
730:
728:
725:
720:
719:
718:Carte Blanche
714:
710:
705:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:Mark Thatcher
687:
683:
679:
678:
673:
668:
664:
660:
652:
648:
643:
639:
636:
632:
628:
623:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:Nel v Le Roux
607:
600:Press freedom
599:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
576:
572:
568:
567:
562:
557:
549:
547:
545:
541:
537:
536:
531:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
508:
506:
502:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
478:
473:
469:
468:
463:
459:
455:
447:
445:
443:
439:
434:
430:
426:
421:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
385:
380:
378:
376:
372:
368:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
344:The court in
339:
334:
330:
328:
324:
320:
319:Dubul' ibhunu
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
298:
293:
289:
285:
284:
278:
275:
270:
261:
259:
256:
251:
247:
242:
240:
236:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
214:
213:
208:
206:
201:
199:
195:
194:
189:
184:
181:
177:
173:
165:
163:
161:
157:
154:opposing the
153:
148:
147:positive duty
144:
139:
137:
133:
129:
122:
120:
115:
108:
106:
105:
100:
95:
91:
84:
78:
75:
72:
69:
68:
67:
63:
61:
53:
51:
49:
48:trademark law
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
24:
18:
1519:
1515:
1492:
1471:
1464:
1453:
1446:
1437:
1426:
1419:
1408:
1401:
1390:
1383:
1369:
1362:
1351:
1344:
1333:
1326:
1315:
1308:
1297:
1290:
1279:
1272:
1261:
1254:
1243:
1236:
1225:
1218:
1207:
1200:
1189:
1182:
1171:
1164:
1153:
1146:
1135:
1128:
1117:
1110:
1099:
1092:
1081:
1074:
1063:
1056:
1045:
1038:
1027:
1020:
1009:
1002:
991:
984:
973:
966:
955:
934:
927:
916:
909:
898:
891:
881:S v Mamabolo
880:
859:
852:
835:
826:
781:
772:
770:
764:
762:
753:
736:
734:
716:
712:
706:
682:open justice
675:
658:
656:
650:
626:
624:
615:
609:
603:
581:
579:
571:nude dancing
564:
555:
553:
533:
527:
523:
509:
500:
491:
481:
465:
451:
437:
424:
422:
415:
407:
391:
389:
386:Criminal law
370:
364:
345:
343:
326:
314:
309:
295:
281:
279:
273:
268:
265:
245:
243:
232:
210:
202:
191:
185:
179:
169:
142:
140:
124:
110:
107:as follows:
104:S v Mamabolo
102:
93:
88:
65:
57:
40:criminal law
20:
16:
15:
763:The SCA in
657:The SCA in
458:English law
292:Jon Qwelane
262:Hate speech
198:hate speech
150:removing a
1532:Categories
800:References
677:sub judice
672:interdicts
505:negligence
472:common-law
454:reputation
448:Defamation
433:incitement
297:Sunday Sun
550:Obscenity
408:S v Hoho,
258:purpose.
152:billboard
1046:S v Hoho
392:Mamabolo
369:held in
356:Zionists
846:. 1996.
501:Bogoshi
477:dignity
294:in the
777:by-law
460:, the
381:Impact
1375:(PDF)
844:(PDF)
538:that
248:that
775:, a
700:and
556:Case
46:and
771:In
580:In
573:at
310:and
269:and
160:BDS
141:In
134:or
101:in
92:in
1534::
1503:^
1482:^
945:^
870:^
807:^
796:.
704:.
507:.
479:.
329:.
241:.
174:,
138:.
50:.
42:,
1497:.
1491:"
1476:.
1470:"
1458:.
1452:"
1431:.
1425:"
1413:.
1407:"
1395:.
1389:"
1377:.
1368:"
1356:.
1350:"
1338:.
1332:"
1320:.
1314:"
1302:.
1296:"
1284:.
1278:"
1266:.
1260:"
1248:.
1242:"
1230:.
1224:"
1212:.
1206:"
1194:.
1188:"
1176:.
1170:"
1158:.
1152:"
1140:.
1134:"
1122:.
1116:"
1104:.
1098:"
1086:.
1080:"
1068:.
1062:"
1050:.
1044:"
1032:.
1026:"
1014:.
1008:"
996:.
990:"
978:.
972:"
960:.
954:"
939:.
933:"
921:.
915:"
903:.
897:"
885:.
879:"
864:.
858:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.