Deleting the post does not delete the liability.
It does delete your proof. South African courts have awarded damages for what people posted on Facebook, and the remedies do not stop at damages: a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act, or proceedings in the Equality Court where the words amount to hate speech. Every one of those routes works from the publication as it stood, and the person who posted it can take it down tonight.
Works on Chrome and Edge. From $4.99 (about R83) as a one-off, or a 7-day trial that requires a credit card.
In South African law defamation is the unlawful, intentional publication of matter concerning another that harms their reputation, and once publication of defamatory matter is shown, unlawfulness and intention are presumed and the defendant has to justify. That structure is favourable to a plaintiff, and it puts the whole weight of the case on proving what was published, by whom, to whom and when. Courts have awarded damages for social media posts: in Isparta v Richter 2013 6 SA 529 (GP) the defendants were ordered to pay R40,000 for comments posted on Facebook, and the second defendant was held liable simply for having been tagged in them. Damages are not the only route. Where the conduct is ongoing, a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act is faster and cheaper, and where the words amount to hate speech the Equality Court has jurisdiction and has imposed substantial awards. Under section 15 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 a data message is admissible and its weight turns on the reliability of how it was generated, stored and communicated, how its integrity was maintained and how its originator was identified. ProofSnap captures the post, the profile, the comment thread and the share count as a package with the full page, the saved source, the URL, the capture time in UTC, a SHA-256 hash of every file and an RSA-4096 signature. From $4.99 (about R83) as a one-off.
By Radim Motycka, Founder and Lead Engineer, ProofSnap · · Independently verifiable via Trust Verifier
Why the claim collapses
The post comes down, and the case comes down with it
Publication is the element you have to prove, and publication is the element the other side can erase from their phone in four seconds.
Deletion is the first reaction
A letter of demand is usually the moment the post disappears. That is a good outcome for your reputation and a bad one for your case, because what you now have to prove is a thing that no longer exists anywhere you control.
Reach is part of the damage
How far it travelled, how many people saw it, who shared it and what the replies said all go to the extent of the harm. Those numbers change hourly and they are gone the moment the post is removed.
A cropped screenshot proves little
An image showing text and a name, with no URL, no timestamp and no surrounding page, invites exactly the response you would expect: that it was fabricated or edited. Section 15(3) asks how the integrity of the record was maintained, and a cropped image has no answer.
Three routes, and what each one needs
Choosing the route changes the deadline and the forum, but not the fact that all three run on the publication itself.
Damages for defamation
Once publication of defamatory matter is established, unlawfulness and intention are presumed and the defendant must raise a defence such as truth in the public interest, fair comment or privilege. Awards in social media cases have been modest but real, with R40,000 ordered in Isparta v Richter 2013 6 SA 529 (GP) for Facebook posts, where liability extended to the person tagged in them as well as the person who wrote them.
A protection order for harassment
Where the conduct is repeated rather than a single publication, section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, in force since 27 April 2013, allows an application to a magistrate’s court for a protection order. It is quicker and cheaper than a damages claim, no attorney is required, and breaching the order is itself an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment.
The Equality Court for hate speech
Where the words amount to hate speech or unfair discrimination, proceedings can be brought in the Equality Court under PEPUDA. The Court has imposed substantial awards in social media cases: on 10 June 2016 the Umzinto Equality Court ordered Penny Sparrow to pay R150,000 to the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation for a Facebook post, interdicted her from repeating it, and referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
All three start from the same document
Whatever route you choose, the first exhibit is the publication: the words, the account, the date, the audience and the reach. Preserve that once and it serves every route, including a criminal complaint if the conduct crosses into crimen injuria.
If you are the one being sued, capture it too
This is underused by defendants. If you published something and you intend to rely on truth in the public interest or on fair comment, the context that supports you is on the same page and on the pages you were responding to, and it is just as deletable. Capture what you actually published, before you edit or remove anything, and capture the material you were commenting on. A defence built on a preserved record is a great deal easier to run than one built on recollection.
How do I capture a defamatory post in South Africa?
No forensic training required. The proof is in the package, not in your testimony about how careful you were.
Capture the post, the profile and the thread
Open the post, the account page and the comment thread in Chrome or Edge and capture each from the side panel. Capture the reach figures too, they are part of the damage.
The package seals itself
Every file is hashed with SHA-256, the manifest is signed with an RSA-4096 key, and the manifest hash is anchored to Bitcoin. The capture time is recorded in UTC, independent of your device clock.
Then send the letter
Send the demand or lodge the application knowing that removal no longer costs you the evidence. The record you attached can be re-checked by anyone, including the other side.
What is in a defamation evidence package?
Between 11 and 15 files depending on your plan, delivered as one ZIP that anyone can check without installing anything.
Full-page screenshot
The whole page, not just the visible window, stitched and hashed.
Saved page source
The document as rendered at capture time, including the head, meta tags and structured data.
Extracted page text
Searchable plain text, so a quote can be found and cited without retyping.
Technical metadata
URL, page title, HTTP response headers, browser, operating system and the capture time in UTC.
Signed manifest
SHA-256 for every file, signed with an RSA-4096 key whose public key ships in the package.
Blockchain timestamp
The manifest hash anchored to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps, so the capture time cannot be backdated.
Chain of custody and forensic log
A record of what happened during the capture, in the order it happened.
Evidence report as PDF
A readable summary you can attach to an application, a notice or a report.
Verification instructions
Written steps plus scripts, so the other side can re-check the hashes offline.
Anyone can verify it, including the other side. Drop the ZIP onto the public Trust Verifier and the hashes, the signature and the timestamp are checked in the browser. Nothing is uploaded and nothing depends on ProofSnap still existing.
Three ways to get the evidence
Prices are charged in USD. Approximate rand figures are shown for orientation only, and your card issuer sets the actual rate.
One dispute
$4.99 once
about R83
A SnapPack is a single up-front purchase for a set number of captures. No subscription, no auto-renewal, no trial. Best when you have one problem and you want it documented today.
Get a SnapPackOngoing matters
$8.99/month
about R149
For anyone who captures regularly: practitioners, property managers, HR, investigators. The 7-day free trial requires a credit card. Cancel any time during the trial and you are not charged.
Start the 7-day trialWe do it for you
$44.99 per URL
about R747
Send us the link and our team captures the package for you, with nothing to install. Useful when the capture should not come from a party to the dispute.
See the capture serviceProofSnap is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. South Africa has no equivalent of the EU qualified timestamp, so the timestamp here is corroboration rather than a legal presumption. What section 15 of ECTA asks about is reliability, and a hash over every file with a signature and a recorded capture time is what answers it. Optional eIDAS qualified timestamps issued by Disig a.s., a Qualified Trust Service Provider on the EU Trusted List, are available on Enterprise plans for cross-border matters.
Official sources
Every figure and deadline on this page comes from the following primary sources. Check them yourself rather than taking our word for it.
- Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 section 15, admissibility and evidential weight of data messages.
- Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011 the protection order route where the conduct is ongoing.
- PEPUDA, Act 4 of 2000 the Equality Court and its jurisdiction over hate speech and unfair discrimination.
If the same account also took money from you, the scam and fraud guide sets out the reporting order that gives you the best chance of recovery. ProofSnap does not decide whether words are defamatory, and nothing here is legal advice. What it does is fix what was published, by which account and when, so that the argument can be about the law rather than about whether the post ever looked like that.
Questions people actually ask
The post can be deleted tonight
Preserve it now, then decide which route fits. The record outlives the takedown.