SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.24 issue1Once More uBuntu: A Reply to Radebe and Phooko'n Leë Dop is soms beter as 'n Halwe Eier -Gounden v Masterof the High Court [2015] JOL 32896 (KZD) en Govender v Gounden 2019 2 SA 262 (KZN) author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ)

On-line version ISSN 1727-3781

Abstract

SINGH, P. Can an Emoji Be Considered as Defamation? A Legal Analysis of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485. PER [online]. 2021, vol.24, n.1, pp.1-26. ISSN 1727-3781.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8918.

This article considers the Australian case of Burrows v Houda 2020 NSWDC 485 and the English case of Lord McAlpine v Bercow 2013 EWHC 1342 (QB). Both cases considered the question of whether emojis could be considered to be defamatory and answered the question in the affirmative. This article also explores whether the South African courts will follow the lead of the Australian and English courts and concludes that emojis also have the potential to be considered defamatory in our law.

Keywords : Defamation; emoji; emoticon; tort; delict; Burrows vHouda; Lord McAlpine v Bercow.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License