Meta and WhatsApp to hand over data on those behind child sexual abuse accounts

After a week of urgent litigation, the Johannesburg high court has ordered Meta, owner of Instagram, and WhatsApp LLC, to hand over — “to the extent available” — the names, addresses, phone numbers and IP addresses of the people behind the profiles and WhatsApp channels posting graphic child sexual abuse images.  

The court also ordered Meta and WhatsApp to remove 12 WhatsApp channels and 58 Instagram accounts, insofar as it was technically feasible, and for two years, whenever similar content is reported to them, they must take action within 48 hours.  

Read More

Judge orders WhatsApp, Instagram to stop user posting sexual content of SA school kids

Judge Mudunwazi Makamu agreed to the orders sought by the Digital Law Company, which is directed by social media law expert Emma Sadleir, after advocate Ben Winks argued that dozens of children had been victimised by the publication of this material.

They had “no recourse” unless the person behind the publication of this private material was identified, he said.

Read More

Kill the Boer: What do the courts' rulings mean for our political discourse?

In the midst of this political tumult, the Constitutional Court last month dealt a fatal blow to AfriForum's legal efforts to have "Shoot the Boer" (and related words) declared to be hate speech. The timing was somewhat unfortunate, as it seemed to support the claim by Trump's influencers that Afrikaners are systemically persecuted in South Africa and cannot even obtain protection from the courts.

But a closer look at the litigation is warranted.

Read More

Why Julius Malema's call to 'kill' might not be hate speech (but is still unlawful)

Malema's speech last month, taken on its own, was a call to "kill" racists or white supremacists, who are not a protected group under our constitutional equality law. I do not believe that the term "racists" or "white supremacists" is coded language for white people as a race. Like in Masuku's case, the speech was not "based on prohibited grounds" and cannot constitute hate speech under South African law.

Read More

The Hate Crimes Bill – too much too late

The fight against hatred in South Africa would have been much better off if, at least twenty years ago, the government had passed a simple amendment to the existing law, stating that hateful motive must be counted as an aggravating factor for sentencing. This would have been passed with no controversy or constitutional challenge.

Read More

In a post-Qwelane world there may be more room for racists to escape legal consequences

But we must now be alert to the reality that, post-Qwelane, there is apparently greater room for bigots to escape legal consequences for insults and "jokes" that wound not only individuals, but whole groups at once – be they Muslim women, transgender people, refugees, or people with disabilities.

Read More