[ad_1]
Under certain circumstances, companies and WhatsApp group administrators may be held liable for inappropriate content posted online by employees or group members.
However, according to the director of employment law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Phetheni Nkuna, this cannot take away the responsibility from the original publisher.
MyBroadband spoke to Nkuna about defamatory comments posted online and their impact on employers.
Nkuna explained that companies can take ownership if they publish negative content under the banner of his name or use his resources.
“It should also be taken into account whether the company knew, or whether the management, encouraged the publication of such negative or offensive information,” he said.
Nkuna said companies should implement policies regarding employees who post negative or offensive information to protect themselves in the event of such incidents.
“Companies must be able to follow safety procedures, establish policies, monitor and educate their employees, and also inform them of the consequences of violating its policies, the or damage to his good name,” he said.
Nkuna also explained that the company can make a claim against the employee – including civil actions, dismissal or criminal charges – if the incident damages its reputation.
Note about WhatsApp delete manager
Some users of the platform have raised concerns over WhatsApp’s comments about its legal situation for group operators in South Africa.
WhatsApp started rolling out a feature on its iOS mobile app as soon as possible group administrators delete messages or multimedia by other members.
Legal experts said group managers should now follow suit greater responsibility to police reports shared by other members.
However, Nkuna said that while group administrators can be held responsible for not removing harmful content, they cannot be held responsible for the content.
“Perhaps it is the legal authority of the social media platform to delete the information, but the person who actually published the information has the authority,” he said.
“They took the first step in sharing information that is offensive or damaging to someone’s good name or reputation.”
“In general, the group manager can be responsible for not deleting, but not responsible for publishing,” he added.
Nkuna explained that group managers may be at risk if they share the information or know of its publication but will keep it safe so that it is not lost.
“But that doesn’t take responsibility away from the honest content publisher,” he added.
Legal definition of defamation
Nkuna said the basis for defamation is determined using a two-pronged test that considers what a reasonable person would think of content that is not offensive.
“A reasonable person is someone who is not overly critical, overly critical, or overly sensitive,” he said.
“The test is whether or not a person of ordinary skill would have known the words to convey a meaning injurious to the person making the complaint.”
“Then look at the natural meaning and meaning of that statement,” he added.
Nkuna explained that there are many things to consider when considering natural and common sense, including:
- What to say;
- What does it mean;
- The context in which it was discussed; a
- The details of the publication.
“Our courts have recognized that what is published is defamatory if it is likely to offend the public opinion of reasonable people in their community or society, ” he said.
Nkuna said that defamation is not limited to written words, and that defamation can spread in your immediate community, be it in the community or professional circles, if it is not considered. of people to you.
“You don’t have to be a celebrity or a public figure to be defamed,” he added.
He added that defamation is not limited to written words and can include comments, pictures, and memes.
Proven defenses
Nkuna gave some examples of how to establish a defense against defamation claims, saying that the accused could escape responsibility if the information they published was true.
However, he said this depends on the situation.
“Just because something is true doesn’t mean it has to be put out there in a bad or bad way,” Nkuna said.
He said defendants could also avoid liability if what they published was in the public interest.
“For example, not too long ago, the former CEO of Eskom, Matshela Koko, appeared on charges of corruption and fraud. Anyone who shares that agenda is in the public interest because Eskom is an SOE. , these are issues that came up during the government arrest investigation, etc.,” said Nkuna.
He emphasized that the information published for the public must be truthful.
“You think it’s good for the public, but it’s not true,” Nkuna said.
[ad_2]
Source link
