SA Supreme Court: Facebook Smear Campaigns Not Protected by Free Speech

Landmark ruling finds online abuse has legal limits, especially when lives are at risk.

A bitter legal feud between a Pretoria lawyer and a disgruntled farmer has now shaped one of South Africa’s most defining rulings on the limits of free speech in the age of social media.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has made it clear: posting defamatory content online, particularly when it leads to harassment or threats, is not protected by the Constitution’s right to freedom of expression.

This comes after a high-profile case involving attorney Pieter Strydom, a legal representative for the Land Bank, and Francois Harman, a farmer who defaulted on his agricultural loan. When Harman blamed Strydom for his financial woes in a series of Facebook posts, things took a dark turn.

Facebook Rant Sparks Threats

The dispute began when Harman accused Strydom on Facebook of “targeting white farmers,” a claim made without evidence. But the damage didn’t stop there. The post ignited a flood of vile and threatening responses from Harman’s followers, including death threats aimed directly at Strydom.

One post read that Strydom “needs a bullet between the eyes.”

The High Court stepped in, ordering Harman to remove the posts, stop harassing Strydom online, and disclose the names of those who had posted the threats. Harman complied with the takedown, but refused to name the others, claiming the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and freedom of expression shielded him.

He appealed to the Supreme Court.

The SCA Wasn’t Buying It

The Supreme Court saw things differently. It ruled that freedom of expression isn’t absolute, especially when that expression morphs into online mob justice.

“To post a message on Facebook that someone ‘needs a bullet between the eyes’ is an impermissible exercise of freedom of expression,” the court stated.

The judges made it clear: the moment your words threaten someone else’s safety or defame them, you’re crossing a legal line. Harman was ordered to hand over the names, under oath of the individuals who made the threats.

Context: A Case Reflecting Growing Online Tensions in SA

This case cuts into a larger national conversation about how social media is being weaponised in South Africa. With increasing frustration around race, land rights, and debt collection, digital platforms often become an echo chamber for outrage.

In this instance, Strydom was merely acting in his professional capacity. His law firm represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa, which provides loans to farmers, loans secured against farmland and repayable after harvest. When repayments stop, legal action starts.

Harman and his company had defaulted, and Strydom was instructed to collect. That’s when the Facebook fury began.

Public Reaction: Divided but Eye-Opening

While some sympathised with Harman’s struggles, many on legal forums and social media applauded the court’s firm stance.

“This was about time,” wrote one user on X (formerly Twitter). “People use freedom of speech like a shield while torching others’ reputations.”

Others worried about privacy and the precedent set for forcing users to expose online identities. But legal experts pointed out: this ruling doesn’t criminalise dissent, it criminalises incitement and targeted defamation.

A Cautionary Tale for South Africans Online

The outcome serves as a wake-up call for users who assume they can say whatever they want online without facing consequences.

Strydom’s case illustrates how quickly an online post can turn into real-world danger and how courts are now adapting to that reality.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s this: freedom of expression in South Africa is not a blank cheque to ruin someone else’s life or safety, especially not with the click of a “Post” button.

As misinformation, personal vendettas, and rage-fuelled commentary continue to surface online, the SCA’s ruling sets a powerful precedent. South Africans might want to think twice before venting publicly especially if those words can wound or endanger.

“Say what you mean, but don’t say it mean or defamatory,” one legal commentator joked on Radio 702 this week. But behind the humour is a very serious message.

Words, once posted, have power. And now, they also have consequences.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com