GoLefty!! Posted December 5, 2014 Share The laws of the Great Island of Australia do not carry weight in South Africa. The Defamation Act of 2005 is only applicable in SOUTH AUSTRALIA (a different SA), although other AUSTRALIAN states have similar legislation. In SOUTH AFRICA:Defamation (infringement of one's fama (reputation)) = infringement of personality right = delict = Roman- Dutch law (SA common law) specifically the actio iniuriarum ie. a few centuries. Slander/libel = Britain/USA/Good Wife/Suits/ LA Law/Bad Judge/etc. In South Africa, one defames another.Zuma claimed that Zapiro DEFAMED him by publishing those very humourous cartoons about him. Steve Hofmeyer claimed that he was DEFAMED by a hand puppet. How so, more exposure = More famous not defamous.... morons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted December 5, 2014 Share Damn. Your real name is Stefan???Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bos Posted December 5, 2014 Share Yep. Im not sure how to answer that... but yes. I see you okes can read.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Posted December 5, 2014 Share Im not sure how to answer that... but yes. I see you okes can read.. Are you the Stefan who was on a rocky mountain and got another rocky mountain now recently.... a nice shiny silver one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefthecountry Posted December 5, 2014 Share No need for Marco to repond here in my opinion. Everyone is on his side, so he already won without even joining the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pulse Posted December 5, 2014 Share No need for Marco to repond here in my opinion. Everyone is on his side, so he already won without even joining the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pulse Posted December 5, 2014 Share No need for Marco to repond here in my opinion. Everyone is on his side, so he already won without even joining the discussion.Best way to win a fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted December 6, 2014 Share Not SA law. The SA principle is defamation, whether in print or verbal. There is no defamatory comment in the original post, unless Marco were to claim that he did not swear and that his reputation was diminished by Op's allegation that he did. Given the responses, we can accept that that is not the case. The law does not concern itself with trivialities. Edit: the original post was ill-considered and clearly failed to take into account the ethos of the Hub. I think he has been rather severely castigated for his lapse.Hmmmmm...Interesting point. While, judging from the posts of support, the shop and Marco's reputation has suffered very little damage, but there's also the question of intent, no? The post was intended to damage reputation. In a court, it's unlikely that they'd win any damages, but could possibly earn an order to withdraw and apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCH Posted December 6, 2014 Share I agree, my popcorn was at the ready and waiting for some arguments to enterntain me through eskom's lights out.I assume only the The Hub main cahoonas can answer me here, is the software design not set up so ip addresses can be logged automatically? I know way to little about this stuff, but almost certain we wont see the OP re-appear under his current name, change email address and we are back pretending it be someone else.... With ip addresses, you will run out of those pretty soon. No idea if its possible or a in depth forensics gyzmo, just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted December 6, 2014 Share I have a query for the OP, does your name stand for Jy's F@##? DOm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewep Posted December 6, 2014 Share Poop, fan and OP's face comes to mind. Shame, he wanted a shoulder to cry on but got bl***emed big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted December 6, 2014 Share Hmmmmm...Interesting point. While, judging from the posts of support, the shop and Marco's reputation has suffered very little damage, but there's also the question of intent, no? The post was intended to damage reputation. In a court, it's unlikely that they'd win any damages, but could possibly earn an order to withdraw and apologise.Quantifiable damages is a requirement under a delictual action and as such the burden of proof would fall upon the plaintiff ie. Marco. It is an objective test ie. The reasonable man. In assessing damages, regard would be had to the mores of society. Swearing is more prevalent today than say the Victorian Period. Some would argue that it is a legitimate form of expression in our secular age. Not many people would bat an eye lid if told someone has a potty mouth. Even were a claim to succeed and costs to be awarded the the Plaintiff, the legal costs not recovered would be substantial. Distinguish this from instances where an interdict is sought to prohibit certain utterances where the alleged defamation might cause damages (you classic "gag order") or a mandatory interdict where offending statements are sought to be removed (eg. Internet photos tending to suggest that Jennifer Lawrence is a rather healthy young woman). In these instances the test is the reasonable foreseeability of harm/damages should the relief not be granted. While defamation is often the sited grounds for the relief and reported publicly as such, the remedy is not delictual. i have not discounted injuria but I don' t want the give OP unfounded ideas. Marco's silence on this issue is to be commended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harryn Posted December 6, 2014 Share The laws of the Great Island of Australia do not carry weight in South Africa. The Defamation Act of 2005 is only applicable in SOUTH AUSTRALIA (a different SA), although other AUSTRALIAN states have similar legislation. In SOUTH AFRICA:Defamation (infringement of one's fama (reputation)) = infringement of personality right = delict = Roman- Dutch law (SA common law) specifically the actio iniuriarum ie. a few centuries. Slander/libel = Britain/USA/Good Wife/Suits/ LA Law/Bad Judge/etc. In South Africa, one defames another.Zuma claimed that Zapiro DEFAMED him by publishing those very humourous cartoons about him. Steve Hofmeyer claimed that he was DEFAMED by a hand puppet.Phew. I had a really bad moment there - his post looked so authoritative, I thought I had better better notify my P I people of a few pending claims! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoLefty!! Posted December 6, 2014 Share oh fr chrsit sakes the OP got a Foff. what is the world coming too if we can't handle a Foff and have to run to social media, lawyers and anyon else who will listen. Man up and vloek back if you feel so f'ing aggrieved. This fred are not deserting of 9 pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capcha Posted December 6, 2014 Share Where is the old days of taking it to the parking lot and letting rip without anybody 'outside" getting involved? The looser gets in his car and goes home and that's the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bos Posted December 6, 2014 Share Are you the Stefan who was on a rocky mountain and got another rocky mountain now recently.... a nice shiny silver one? ITS MEEEE !! Where do you know me from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.