Case law 3
term freedom of expression was taken into consideration by the Supreme
Court because their right is protected by the constitution. Also, it stated
that the right was not “sacrosanct” because there are certain limitations
on how it should be applied. For instance, one’s dignity must be
respected. The applicants, in this case, failed to answer whether their
article took into consideration essential factors of dignity when publishing
the article. In addition, they failed to research on the type of information
to be published, how reliable the source of information was and the steps
considered when verifying the information. The Times Newspaper stated
that the article was the only innuendo and not defamatory.3 To prove this,
the court sought a definition from Black’s law dictionary of the term
‘innuendo’4. The dictionary defines the term as being an indirect
suggestion or an oblique suggestion that is derogatory. The court
compared the terms innuendo and defamation and stated that reasonable
people or readers of the article could not understand the meaning of
these terms. Further, direct accusations against Zwane were defamatory.
Besides, the Times Newspaper did not verify its information even after
knowing that it published defamation information.
The most important factor is that the Newspaper did not seek any
response from Zwane about her paternity. It would have been prudent to
contact her before making a publication. On the second issue of the costs
awarded, the Supreme Court held that it has discretional power that
3 Trindade, Francis A. "The Law of Defamation In The New Millenium 27 (2019): 23-58.
4 Case Law C 20 (30th June 2016)

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Freedom of Speech and Defamation: A Case Law Analysis

Contribute Materials