KS v AM & AHM: A case of revenge porn and defamation

In the bustling city of Johannesburg, a tale of love, betrayal, and revenge unfolded in the hallowed halls of the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court. The case of KS v AM & AHM [2024] 21-28121 (GJ), presided over by the astute MIA J, was not just another legal battle; it was a story that gripped the country, its details whispered in hushed tones and debated with fervour.

The villain unveiled

At the heart of the storm was KS, a woman of exceptional intellect and unwavering determination. Her world was shattered when she discovered the man she loved, AM, was not the prince charming he pretended to be. He was, in fact, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a master manipulator who had spun a web of deceit, leading her down a path of heartbreak and despair.

From lover to tormentor

When KS threatened to end their relationship, AM transformed from a lover to a tormentor. He threatened to release intimate images of her, a cruel attempt to maintain control and break her spirit. But KS was no ordinary woman; she was a fighter. She refused to be blackmailed and ended the relationship.

Public humiliation

In a shocking turn of events, AM, aided by his wife, AHM, created a fake Facebook profile of KS. They impersonated her and posted intimate images and videos of her. They also posted defamatory comments, inviting her family, friends, and colleagues to witness her humiliation. The country watched in horror as KS’s life was laid bare, her privacy violated, and her reputation tarnished.

The fight for justice

KS, however, was not one to be defeated. She fought back, seeking justice and vindication in the court of law.

The courtroom became a battleground, with KS’s lawyer painting a vivid picture of her trauma and humiliation. The country held its breath as MIA J delivered her verdict. This verdict would not only impact KS’s life but also set a precedent for future cases involving online violence against women.

The legal battleground

The legal side of KS v AM & AHM involved claims for damages resulting from the defendants’ actions. These actions included:

• creating a fake Facebook profile of the plaintiff;
• posting intimate images and videos without her consent; and
• making defamatory statements against her.

The plaintiff sought general and special damages based on claims of privacy infringement, defamation, and emotional distress. The court considered the extent of the breach of privacy and the violation of the plaintiff’s dignity in determining the damages.

The law

The judgment was based on the application of relevant legislation, including the following:

• Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998;
• Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020; and
• Films and Publications Amendment Act 11 of 2019.

The court also took into account the international obligations of South Africa, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Rights of the Child.

Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal principles, the specific circumstances of the case, and a broader societal concern about online violence against women.

• Severity of the defendants’ actions: The court recognised the gravity of the defendants’ actions, which included creating a fake Facebook profile, posting intimate images and videos without consent, and making defamatory statements. These actions were deemed a serious violation of the plaintiff’s dignity, privacy, and reputation.
• Impact on the plaintiff: The court considered the significant emotional distress and humiliation suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendants’ actions. The plaintiff’s testimony, along with the psychologist’s report, provided evidence of the extent of the trauma she experienced, including PTSD, anxiety, and social withdrawal.
• Relevant legislation and international obligations: The court’s decision was grounded in the relevant legislation, including the Domestic Violence Act, the Cybercrimes Act, and the Films and Publications Amendment Act. The court also considered South Africa’s international obligations to protect the rights of women and children.
• Deterrence and prevention: The court aimed to deter such actions in the future and prevent further harm by awarding substantial damages. The judgment sends a clear message that online violence against women will not be tolerated.
• Novelty of the claims: The court acknowledged the novelty of the claims related to online defamation and revenge porn, recognising the need to adapt legal frameworks to address these emerging issues.

Decision

The court decided in favour of the plaintiff, KS, and awarded a total of R3,750,000.00 in damages, along with interest and costs.

The breakdown of the damages awarded is as follows:

• Claim A: R250,000.00 for creating and activating the false Facebook profile.
• Claim B: R2,500,000.00 for the posting of the videos and R300,000.00 for medical costs related to the emotional trauma.
• Claim C: R500,000.00 for the defamatory words published on the fake Facebook profile.
• Claim D: R250,000.00 for the communication by the second defendant to a colleague of the plaintiff.

Claims E and F were not granted as the court found that the plaintiff had not established the allegations.

Impact of the decision

The case of KS v AM & AHM holds significant implications for the online community, particularly about online safety, privacy, and legal recourse for victims of online abuse. Here are some key takeaways:

1. Recognition of online harm: The case highlights the severe consequences of online actions such as creating fake profiles, posting intimate images without consent (revenge porn), and making defamatory statements. The court’s recognition of the emotional distress and reputational damage caused by these actions underscores the seriousness of online abuse.
2. Legal protection against online violence: The case demonstrates the availability of legal recourse for victims of online violence in South Africa. The court’s reliance on legislation such as the Domestic Violence Act, the Cybercrimes Act, and the Films and Publications Amendment Act shows the commitment to protecting individuals from online abuse.
3. Setting a precedent: The substantial damages awarded in this case set a precedent for future online abuse cases. This sends a strong message that perpetrators of online violence will be held accountable for their actions, potentially deterring similar behaviour in the future.
4. Protection of women’s rights: The case aligns with South Africa’s international obligations to protect women’s and children’s rights, particularly regarding online safety and freedom from violence. It reinforces the importance of addressing gender-based violence, including online forms of abuse.
5. Evolving legal landscape: The case reflects the evolving legal landscape in response to emerging challenges in the digital age. The court’s handling of this case involving online defamation and revenge porn demonstrates the adaptability of legal frameworks to address new forms of online abuse.

ITLawCo: Your shield against online violence

If you find yourself in a similar situation, facing online harassment, defamation, or revenge porn, ITLawCo is here to help. Our team of experienced attorneys specialises in cyberlaw and can provide expert legal advice and representation. We understand the devastating impact of online violence and are committed to protecting your rights and dignity. Contact ITLawCo today for a confidential consultation. If you want to know more about the case, read it here.