A Germiston woman has won a first-of-its-kind ruling in the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) after she successfully sued a couple for distributing revenge porn about her on Facebook.

A Daily Maverick report says the court awarded her R3.5m in damages.

The woman sued for general and special damages after the defendants had created an imposter social media profile to distribute a recording of intimate images of her.

The pornographic material was also distributed in communications by the cheating husband’s wife to various colleagues of the plaintiff and a senior colleague at the company where the plaintiff was employed.

The plaintiff was in a romantic relationship with a man, named as the first defendant in the case, from August 2014 to January 2015. He was, however, married, but did not tell her and even proposed to her. She accepted his proposal. However, in January 2015, the man’s wife came to see her and shared that he was already married.

The woman immediately ended the relationship.

The cheating husband refused to stop seeing the woman. This was followed by a threat to send a video he recorded of her engaged in sex with him to her family and friends. He directed her to a Facebook profile that he had created, saying he would invite everyone they knew and post the video he had recorded.

He sent a video clip to her WhatsApp to ensure she knew what the content was. She was not aware that the first defendant had been recording intimate images and video of them while they were together.

The woman sued the man for damages including for the infringement of her dignity and privacy by both the man and his wife as both posted on the Facebook account.

She also sued for the operation of a false Facebook account where the couple posted two videos depicting the plaintiff in a state of undress and engaging in sexual conduct. The man had created the videos without his ex-girlfriend’s consent.

‘The (couple) intended this to come to the woman’s attention and to humiliate her, and she was severely traumatised as a result. She has experienced pain and suffering and has undergone medical treatment and will require treatment in the future due to the emotional trauma she has experienced. This claim is for R2.5m for general damages,’ Judge Shanaaz Mia explained in her judgment.

The woman had also sued for defamatory statements published by the couple on Facebook that Mia said were ‘calculated to impute an immoral picture of the plaintiff to bring shame to her family and her professional life. The content describes the plaintiff as the person in the video, continuing that she gave the man her phone number at a filling station even though there was a baby on board sign’ on his car.

Mia said the woman had testified that she could not continue working at the same company. She was embarrassed and humiliated when her family and friends discovered the videos. She was so emotionally distressed she had considered suicide.

She suffered from and has been treated for alopecia caused by the stress and anxiety she experiences.

She does not go out and fears for her family when they go out. She obtained a protection order against the man. As a result of the trauma and distress she experienced, she sought the professional assistance of a psychologist.

Mia said the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women also observed that the ‘publication or posting online without consent of intimate photographs or photoshopped images that are sexualised’ violates the subject’s rights to privacy, to dignity and to live a life free from violence.

‘I have considered that the legislation criminalising the conduct is reflective of the seriousness of the infringement. This reflects the extent to which the state has acted to ensure the protection of the right to privacy and dignity of persons and is in keeping with their international obligations to do so,’ DM reports Mia added.

‘There can be no mathematical precision when harm is occasioned. The amounts awarded are a mere (comfort) and served to reimburse the plaintiff for costs incurred or that she will incur. It is of consequence that the plaintiff had not consented to being recorded in a state of undress or whilst engaged in sexual activity by (her former boyfriend) or anyone else and had not been aware of this recording. She terminated the relationship when she learnt he was married,’ Mia continued.

‘The conduct of (her former boyfriend) in capturing the recording is unconscionable. She should be safe from such invasive behaviour. The further conduct of the couple in creating the fake Facebook account and posting videos and other content exacerbate her right to be free from violence and to have her dignity intact,’ Mia said.

Full Daily Maverick report