Class notes
Internet Law - Magic Notes
- Course
- Internet Law (INT431)
- Institution
- University Of The Western Cape (UWC)
The document is my personally written lecture notes pertaining to internet law.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
PROTEA TECHNOLOGY V WAINERThe High Court was tasked with evaluating whether or not the employee’s right to
privacy was violated by the interception of an indirect communication by the
employer. The Court made particular reference to the scope of the right to privacy,
ruling that the right to privacy only exists where there is a legitimate expectation to it,
as the scope of a person’s privacy extends only to those aspects in regard to which a
legitimate expectation of privacy can be harboured. The court ultimately ruled that
that where an employee has communications pertaining to the business of the
employer, the communications do not fall within the ambit of the right to privacy and
thus, the employer is entitled to demand and obtain a full account as the employee
can furnish and these conversations did not enjoy constitutional protection.
CASE V MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
The case concerned a challenge to the constitutionality of section 2(1) of the
Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, which prohibited the possession of
indecent or obscene photographic matter. The court ultimately declared s2 (1) as
invalid. In a judgment delivered by Didcott J on behalf of the majority of the Court, it
was held that s 2(1) constituted an infringement of the right to personal privacy
guaranteed by s 13 of the interim Constitution. The invasion of the right to privacy,
the Court held, was aggravated by the very broad definition of indecent or obscene
photographic matter contained in the Act. The Court held that the infringement of the
right to privacy was neither reasonable nor justifiable in terms of s 33(1) of the
Constitution and therefore s 2(1) was unconstitutional.
The Court did, however, note that an invasion of privacy may be permissible in terms
of the limitation clause, where the material concerned was so malicious that a ban on
its possession could be said to serve a useful purpose in the campaign against the
production of such material. This was not, however, the case in respect of the
challenged section because the section covered innocuous material that deserved to
be protected by the constitutional right to privacy.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller joshuapatterson. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R109,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60434 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now