Exam (elaborations)
LCR4805 EXAM PACK 2023
- Course
- LCR4805 (LCR4805)
- Institution
- University Of South Africa
the document has the latest questions and elaborate answers
[Show more]
Content preview
LCR4802 EXAMPACK 2023
UPDATED
REVISION PACK
,LCR4805
Read this:
These are my personal notes. I make no representation that they are correct or studying them
Selected Private and Criminal Law
will help you pass LCR409.
Principles ofexactly
In fact, I make the Internet
the opposite representation: if you only use these notes to study, you
will probably fail.
Make sure that you only use these notes as a staring point.
Defamation and the Internet
Definition
Defamation is the intentional infringement of another person's right to his good name. In other
words, it is the wrongful, intentional publication of words or behaviour concerning another person
which has the effect of injuring his status, good name or reputation.
Certain elements must be present:
1. the act (publication of words or behaviour)
2. an injury to personality (the defamatory effect of the words or behaviour)
3. wrongfulness (the infringement of the personality right to a good name)
a. Defences: privilege, truth and public interest, fair comment
4. intention ( animus iniuriandi)
a. Defences excluding fault: mistake, jest
5. a causal connection between the act and the injury to personality.
Defamation on the Internet in South Africa
:
National Media v Bogoshi
● strict liability of the media: rejected as incompatible with freedom of expression; replaced by
liability based on negligence.
● court will have to evaluate the defamatory allegation in view of the objective reasonableness
of the publication
Three key questions i.t.o. law of defamation on the Internet is concerned:
1. When does publication occur?
2. Who is liable for the defamation?
3. Where does publication occur?
When does publication occur?
Publication: the objectionable statement or behaviour regarding the defamed person is made
known to at least one person other than the defamed individual.
As soon as the outsider becomes aware of the defamatory nature of the allegation or behaviour,
the publication requirement is fulfilled.
Who is liable for the defamation?
Once publication has taken place, plaintiff has to show that defendant was responsible for
publication.
Defendant will be accountable for defamation if he was aware or could reasonably have
expected that an outsider would gain knowledge of the alleged defamation.
Not only the person from whom the defamatory allegation originated, but every person who
repeats, confirms or draws attention to it would in principle be responsible for its publication.
Thus: not only the author of a defamatory message or a defamatory allegation in, for example
an online magazine, will be held liable, but also the editor, printer, publisher and owner of that
magazine.
There is a difference between an individual and the media in the degree of liability. Thus
distinction:
1. mass media: online newspapers and magazines and other online news services
, 2. not mass media: senders of email messages and participants in real-time chat groups
3. bulletin boards and newsgroups:
a. no editorial control is exercised: postings probably not regarded as “mass media”.
Authors of defamatory email messages liable are liable, but possibly also employers.
Employers can be held vicariously liable for delicts committed by employees in course and
scope of employment.
Whether employer will be held liable, will depend on surrounding circumstances. Important
factor: whether defamatory email was sufficiently connected to the employer's business or
whether the employee was on a so-called “ frolic of his own”
Liability of ISPs for defamatory content
Liability of ISPs: to a large extent dependent on their function and role in the publication
process and a distinction, based on their respective functions is generally made between:
● authors, editors and publishers of the material, where some form of editorial control is
usually exercised
● distributors linked to the distribution process such as hosts, and network and service
providers
● common carriers who serve merely as conduits in the transmission and routing process
(analogous to a post office or telephone company), for example, access providers and
possibly hosts, depending on their role in the publication process
Position in the USA
History:
Cubby Inc v Compuserve:Cubby: complained that it had been defamed in a newsletter on a
forum and instituted a claim for defamation against CompuServe.
Court held: CompuServe qualified as a distributor of information and could therefore only be
liable if they had knowledge or ought to have had knowledge of the offending material.
Lack of evidence that CompuServe had any knowledge of the defamatory statements and the
fact that it was not feasible for the ISP to check every publication for potentially defamatory
statements, the court held that the defendant was not liable.
Stratton Oakmont Inc et al v Prodigy Services Company: Court held: Prodigy, should be held
liable as a publisher, rather than a distributor, for information published on the defendant’s bulletin
boards.
Court argued that Prodigy was liable as a publisher of the defamatory content due to the
following:
1. Prodigy held itself out to the public and its members as controlling the content of its bulletin
board
2. Prodigy exerted editorial control over its content through the use of an automatic screening
software program and board leaders to enforce its content guidelines
Case was taken on appeal and overturned.
Current:
Lunney v Prodigy Services:ISPs could claim to be common carriers.
Liability of ISP was not decided by relying on the distinction between a publisher and a
distributor and the indemnity provided by section 230 of the CDA, but the court granted the ISP
the common-law privilege usually given to telephone and postal companies, namely, that of being
a mere conduit or common carrier.
Court decided that Prodigy was not a publisher of messages but, rather, a passive conduit for
the information, similar to a telephone company and, therefore, not liable.
In USA a distinction is drawn between primary and secondary publishers: in the case of a
, secondary publisher (mere distributor as in the case of an ISP), onus is on the claimant to
prove fault by the secondary publisher.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 section 230(c) of the Act: expressly provides that
ISPs are not liable as the publishers “of any information provided by another information content
provider”.
Zeran v America Online:started trend of establishing broad immunity for ISPs from defamation
liability under Section 230(c) of the CDA.
Position in the UK
I.t.o. liability of ISPs in the UK, distinction is generally made between
1. publishers of defamatory material on, for example, bulletin boards
2. innocent disseminators of such material.
1. If considered to be publishers, i.t.o. principles of strict liability of publishers for defamation,
may be found liable for defamation without fault.
a. Will have to rely on the same defences available to an author, i.e. liability would
depend on whether alleged defamatory allegation was truthful, constituted fair
comment, or was privileged.
2. If they can argue successfully that they do not take an active part in the actual process of
communication, but merely provide the means to make it possible, they may be able to rely
on one of two defences, namely
a. The common-law defence of innocent dissemination, or
b. The statutory defence of innocent dissemination in terms of section 1 of the
Defamation Act of 1996.
Common-law defence of innocent dissemination
Three elements of defence: Operator:
1. did not know that the network/bulletin board contained the libel in question
2. did not know that material on the network or bulletin board was of a nature likely to contain
libellous material
3. did not lack knowledge of (1) and (2) above as the result of any negligence on the
operator's part
Not a very useful defence:
1. ISP that becomes aware of the fact that, for example, a bulletin board is likely to contain
defamatory statements will not be able to rely on this defence
2. ISP or operator that deliberately closes its eyes to the nature of the material on its bulletin
boards or network will probably not be able to escape liability
3. Decided in Laurence Godfrey v Demon Internet Limitedthat ISP that carries defamatory
material on a newsgroup or website is a publisher for the purposes of defamation law and is
prima facieliable.
The statutory defence of innocent dissemination
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996:
1. In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that
a. he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
b. he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
c. he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed
to the publication of a defamatory statement.
2. A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only
involved
a. in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on
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 PalmcomWriters. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R55,91. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60281 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now