| dc.contributor.author | Singh, Priya | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-04T07:46:17Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-03-04T07:46:17Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Singh, P. 2021. Can an emoji be considered as defamation? A legal analysis of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485. Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad = Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2021(24):1- 26 [http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727- 3781/2021/v24i0a8918] | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1727-3781 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38748 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-
3781/2021/v24i0a8918 | |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
| dc.language | English | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | PER/PELJ | en_US |
| dc.subject | Defamation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Emoji | en_US |
| dc.subject | Emoticon | en_US |
| dc.subject | Tort | en_US |
| dc.subject | Delict | en_US |
| dc.subject | Burrows v Houda | en_US |
| dc.subject | Lord McAlpine v Bercow | en_US |
| dc.title | Can an emoji be considered as defamation? A legal analysis of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485 | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
