- The SCA ruled that freedom of expression does not protect violent threats or online harassment.
- Privacy laws cannot shield people who spread harmful or unlawful content.
- The case affirms that access to justice applies online, where real harm can be done.
What started as a debt dispute between a farmer and a lawyer spiralled into a dangerous campaign of online abuse, and ended with a strong message from South Africa’s highest civil court that the law applies online too, and access to justice must be upheld in the digital age.
When Pretoria-based attorney Pieter Strydom opened Facebook one morning, he wasn’t expecting a flood of threats, slurs and accusations from strangers. He had simply done his job, acting on behalf of the Land Bank in a matter involving unpaid agricultural loans.
But his client, farmer Francois “Cois” Harman, took to Facebook, accusing Strydom of corruption and targeting white farmers. The posts quickly went viral. Strangers began sharing Strydom’s photo, office address and personal details. One chilling comment read, “He needs a bullet between the eyes.”
A line was crossed
Strydom, fearing for his life, approached the courts for protection. He first secured a protection order from the Magistrate’s Court. When that didn’t stop the online attacks, he turned to the North West High Court, which granted an urgent interdict, ordering Harman to take down the harmful posts and reveal the names of those involved in the smear campaign.
Harman refused. He claimed his rights were being violated, his right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to speak up about injustice. But the courts saw it differently.
Court: Rights come with responsibilities
On 18 July 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed Harman’s appeal. The judges made it clear that South Africa’s Constitution protects our rights, but not without limits, especially when those rights hurt others.
They found that Harman had every chance to challenge the original court order. He could have asked for a reconsideration, opposed it or applied to have it rescinded. But he didn’t. Instead, he tried to fight it later, using arguments the court found weak and misguided.
Most importantly, the court zeroed in on Harman’s Facebook post suggesting Strydom “needs a bullet between the eyes.” That, the judges said, wasn’t protected speech. It was a threat. And the Constitution does not protect hate or violence.
You can’t hide behind ‘privacy’
Harman also argued that he couldn’t be forced to reveal the identities of others who helped him attack Strydom online. He said this violated their privacy.
But the court ruled that neither the Constitution’s privacy protections nor the POPIA law can be used to shield people who spread hate or threaten someone’s safety. When the online space is used for harassment or intimidation, the law has a duty to step in.
What this means for you
This case isn’t just about one lawyer and one farmer. It’s about all of us, and how we use social media.
The judgment is a powerful reminder that the internet isn’t a free-for-all. You can’t use it to destroy someone’s life and expect no consequences. With access to justice under threat from online mobbing and misinformation, courts are stepping up to draw the line.
And for people like Strydom, who face real-world danger because of what’s said online, the courts remain a vital place of refuge.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
