Establishing civil liability for any person found to disseminate, broadcast, publish or display any content that could reasonably be construed or reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention to unfairly discriminate against any person (section 12); and civil as well as potentially criminal liability (upon discretion of the Director of Public Prosecution) for any person who is found to “publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds (i.e., race, gender, disability), against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to (a) be hurtful; (b) be harmful or to incite harm; or (c) promote or propagate hatred (section 10).
According to Article 2: The object of this Act shall be to regulate the distribution of certain publications and the exhibition and distribution of certain films, in the main by means of classification, the imposition of age restrictions and the giving of consumer advice, due regard being had to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. According to Article 25: Any person who knowingly- (a) distributes or advertises for distribution a publication classified as XX in terms of a decision of the Board which has been published in the Gazette; (b) distributes a publication classified as X18 in terms of such a decision so published; (c) distributes a publication, classified as R18 or F18 in terms of such a decision so published, in conflict with a condition referred to in section 17(1)(c) or (d)...
Establishing the obligation of IAPs, subject to criminal sanctions (section 27 (A) (4)), to: (a) register with the Board in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act; (b) take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of their services for the hosting or distribution of child pornography (section 27 (A) (1)); (c) upon discovery of the use of their services to host or distribute child pornographic material, report to the police the presence thereof, as well as the particulars of the person maintaining or hosting or distributing or in any manner contributing to such Internet address; and (c1) take all reasonable steps to preserve such evidence for purposes of investigation and prosecution by the relevant authorities (section 27 (A) (2).
Rejecting the safe harbor defense of section 75 of the Electronic Communications because respondent does not fall within the definition of “service provider”, as it is instead the means to obtain access to an information service provider.
Ordering a user to remove defamatory content, but declining to enjoin the respondent from posting any information pertaining to the applicant on Facebook or any other social media, and declining to order Facebook to remove specific material from a user’s webpage (but raising the question of whether the police would have the competence to do so upon failure to act by the user).
Finding that publication of the name of the applicant in the “Hall of Shame” list of spammers by the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) was justified by its true character and by the public interest served by the publication. This decision by ISPA was based on the definition of spam contained in its code of conduct, which supplements the generic notion of spam identified by section 45 of the Electronic Communication and Transactions Act and does not afford non-members an opportunity to be heard before being included in such list.