1887

n Stellenbosch Law Review = Stellenbosch Regstydskrif - Liability for the mass publication of private information in South African law :

USD

 

Abstract

The action in respect of the mass publication of private information in South African law was first recognised by Watermeyer J in in 1954. Here a photograph of a female journalist firing a pistol had been published by the first defendant's newspaper, , in the context of an advertisement for guns and ammunition placed by the second defendant: she had given her consent to the use of the image as an illustration for an article in newspaper, but she had not consented to its use for advertising purposes; neither had she consented to the publication of her name. O'Keeffe brought an against the first and second defendants. She alleged that in the circumstances the publication of her photograph and name had constituted a violation of her dignity. The defendants excepted to the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it disclosed no harm actionable under the . However, Watermeyer J dismissed the exception. The protected person, dignity and reputation, and the unauthorised publication of a person's photograph and name for advertising purposes was capable of constituting an aggression upon that person's dignity where this was understood to incorporate a wide range of personality interests, including her interest in privacy.

Die onderwerp van hierdie artikel is deliktuele aanspreeklikheid weens die massa-publikasie van privaatinligting in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg met besondere klem op die beslissing van die Grondwetlike Hof in ) 2007 5 SA 250 (CC). Die beslissing word in historiese konteks geplaas en die hoofbevindinge word uiteengesit en geëvalueer. Daar word bevind dat die resultaat van die uitspraak aanvaarbaar mag wees, maar dat die uitsprake van veral Langa HR en O'Regan en Sachs RR sekere gebreke openbaar wat tot onaanvaarbare gevolge kan lei. Die analogie wat getref word tussen laster en inbreuk op privaatheid is analities onaanvaarbaar, die beskouing dat nalatigheid die gepaste standaard vir skuld is in sake wat handel oor privaatheid is onvoldoende begrond, en die standaard vir nalatigheid wat deur hoofregter Langa HR en Sachs R aangehang word kom onnodig streng voor. Dit lyk veral nie of steun vir hierdie standaard in die resente Engelse reg oor vertrouensbreuk gevind kan word nie, aangesien daardie stelsel 'n meer genaakbare benadering tot skuld voorstaan. In die saak is eerder op die klaers se reputasie as hul waardigheid inbreuk gemaak. Die beslissing van die drie regters handel ongelukkig slegs op indirekte wyse met die kernkonflik tussen wat mense werklik dink oor persone wat HIV positief is, teenoor wat mense veronderstel is om oor sulke persone te dink. Dit is jammer dat hierdie konflik nie direk aangespreek is nie, en daar eerder besluit is om die reg oor privaatheid te wysig ten einde die klaers se grondwetlike regte te beskerm.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/ju_slr/18/3/EJC54643
2007-01-01
2016-12-08
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error