Over and above the limitations imposed by S16(2) of the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) ensures the ‘prevention, prohibition and elimination of unfair discrimination, hate speech and harassment’. Section 10 of the Act provides that no person may communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, be harmful or to incite harm, or promote or propagate hatred. PEPUDA sufficiently prohibits hate speech in that nobody may ‘disseminate or broadcast any information’ or ‘publish or display any advertisement or notice’ that may be reasonably understood as a clear …show more content…
It is already a crime under our common law to impair someone’s dignity through speech by being convicted or charged with an offence called crimen injuria. Similarly, under our common law, defamation is the unlawful and intentional publication of matter that impairs another person’s reputation.
In ANC v Sparrow the court included an order after finding the defendant liable for damages that “the clerk of the Equality Court is directed to submit this matter in its entirety to the Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal for consideration regarding the institution of criminal proceedings, either in terms of the common law or relevant legislation” . This approach by the court, provides guidane to the fact that hate speech is already criminalised in the form of crimen injuria.
Furthermore, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), can investigate a “hate speech” incident following a complaint laid with the Commission. Alternatively, they can do so on their own accord. Matters adjudicated by the SAHRC may result in further court action, should the Commission decide that this is