Expensive outbursts : The case of Penny Sparrow
Five months after she brought South Africa to the edge of an abyss, Penny Sparrow has been fined R150,000 by the Equality Court.
In terms of the order which was handed down on 10 June 2016, Penny Sparrow, the infamous Scottburgh estate agent whose racist slurs "went viral", has to pay R150,000 to the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation as well as costs for the suit.
The Magistrate hearing the matter ruled that her post amounted to hate speech, that it was not protected by her constitutional right to freedom of expression and further ordered that the case should be handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against her.
Three days earlier, Matthew Theunissen, another racist Facebook user who used foul and racially charged language to express his "frustration" regarding sporting quotas, reached an agreement with the South African Human Rights Commission.
In terms of the agreement he will embark on community service in a disadvantaged area of Cape Town and refrain from engaging on any social media platform for 12 months, as well as submit to counselling and anger management.
Why were Sparrow and Theunissen treated so differently when their conduct was similarly revolting? Firstly, two different legal avenues were taken against them with different possible outcomes. Secondly, Sparrow did not defend herself in court and did not offer a proper apology for her conduct whilst Theunissen apologised on a number of different occasions and co-operated fully with the South African Human Rights Commission.
The lesson is this: If you post hate speech on Facebook you cannot hide behind the excuse of freedom of speech. You are not protected by the law. There are various ways that you can be brought to book and you will either be paying in time or money. The Sparrow judgment makes it clear that racists will not be treated leniently.
Verlie Oosthuizen
Shepstone & Wylie Social Media Law Department
The Magistrate hearing the matter ruled that her post amounted to hate speech, that it was not protected by her constitutional right to freedom of expression and further ordered that the case should be handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against her.
Three days earlier, Matthew Theunissen, another racist Facebook user who used foul and racially charged language to express his "frustration" regarding sporting quotas, reached an agreement with the South African Human Rights Commission.
In terms of the agreement he will embark on community service in a disadvantaged area of Cape Town and refrain from engaging on any social media platform for 12 months, as well as submit to counselling and anger management.
Why were Sparrow and Theunissen treated so differently when their conduct was similarly revolting? Firstly, two different legal avenues were taken against them with different possible outcomes. Secondly, Sparrow did not defend herself in court and did not offer a proper apology for her conduct whilst Theunissen apologised on a number of different occasions and co-operated fully with the South African Human Rights Commission.
The lesson is this: If you post hate speech on Facebook you cannot hide behind the excuse of freedom of speech. You are not protected by the law. There are various ways that you can be brought to book and you will either be paying in time or money. The Sparrow judgment makes it clear that racists will not be treated leniently.
Verlie Oosthuizen
Shepstone & Wylie Social Media Law Department