As legal disputes over free speech and public participation become increasingly prominent in South Africa, a defamation case involving activist Megan Choritz has reignited debate about where public criticism ends and reputational harm begins.
Choritz, a member of South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP), is defending a lawsuit brought by Professor Adam Mendelsohn over social media posts relating to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and allegations of genocide against Palestinians.
Supporters have described the matter as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, commonly known as a SLAPP suit, while Mendelsohn maintains that the proceedings are intended to protect his reputation.
Social justice activist Hassen Lorgat shared his perspective on the case, raising broader questions about activism, constitutional rights and the role of litigation in public discourse.
SMread: Cassim brushes off Islamophobic backlash and pledges to serve all South Africans
What is a SLAPP suit?
Central to the discussion is the concept of a SLAPP suit, a term used to describe legal action that critics say is designed to discourage public participation by making litigation financially and emotionally burdensome.
Lorgat said the concept was developed by legal scholars George Pring and Penelope Canan to describe lawsuits brought primarily to intimidate critics rather than resolve genuine legal disputes.
“SLAPPs are strategic litigation against public participation… baseless or exaggerated lawsuits aimed at intimidating those who speak out. The goal is to silence free speech and advocacy.”
According to Lorgat, South Africa has encountered similar litigation before, particularly in environmental activism involving mining companies.
“The Centre for Environmental Rights has been dealing with this from 2017 where their lawyers and community activists were sued by mining companies to intimidate them.”
He believes the current matter should be viewed against that broader legal background, although whether the case meets the legal threshold of a SLAPP suit will ultimately be determined through the courts.
SMread: State ‘genuflected’ to minority as protests pass
The case against Megan Choritz
The lawsuit centres on statements made by Choritz on social media in which she referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. Mendelsohn alleges that the statements were defamatory and damaged his reputation. He is seeking R500,000 in damages.
Lorgat described Choritz as an outspoken activist whose online platforms have been used to advocate for Palestinian rights. He questioned why legal proceedings had been instituted against Choritz specifically, arguing that the disparity in resources between the parties is significant.
“She’s not a professor, she hasn’t got top lawyers. She’s trying to see how to respond to this.”
Lorgat believes the case could have wider implications for activists who speak publicly on contentious issues. “He’s picking on her to send a message to the media, activists like me, various other people that hey, you mess with us, you will get this.”
Mendelsohn has not publicly characterised the matter as a SLAPP suit. His legal claim is based on allegations that Choritz’s statements unlawfully harmed his reputation.
SMread: Tony Leon dismisses ‘state capture’ accusations
Free speech and defamation
Lorgat distinguished between speech made in the public interest and speech that is intentionally false or malicious. He claimed that activists acting in good faith should not be discouraged from participating in matters of public concern simply because they face the prospect of costly litigation.
However, he also rejected the notion that activists should receive blanket immunity from defamation claims. He added that individuals who knowingly spread false information should continue to face legal consequences.
“Those seeking to harm others through lies and distortions should not get protection.”
The tension between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation remains a longstanding feature of South African law, with courts balancing both rights under the Constitution.
SMread: Presidency not worried by threat of ongoing anti-immigration protests
Media, power and public perception
Lorgat also raised concerns about how legal disputes involving activists are portrayed in the media. Reporting can sometimes focus more on the reputation of those bringing legal action than on the circumstances of those defending themselves.
According to Lorgat, the financial and emotional costs of litigation can themselves influence public participation, regardless of the eventual outcome.
He suggested that the lawsuit may have implications beyond the immediate parties by creating concern among others engaged in advocacy. Whether that interpretation accurately reflects the purpose of the litigation remains disputed.
SMread: OPINION | The return of divide and rule
Differing perspectives on Gaza
Lorgat reflected on what he viewed as a change in Mendelsohn’s public position over time.
He contrasted that with Mendelsohn’s subsequent criticism of South Africa’s decision to institute genocide proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice. South Africa has obligations under international law when credible allegations of genocide arise.
Israel has rejected allegations that it is committing genocide and has defended itself saying that the ICJ’s military operations are conducted in self-defence following the attacks of 7 October 2023. Proceedings before the court remain ongoing, and no final determination has been made on the merits of South Africa’s genocide case.
Although the outcome of the defamation proceedings remains for the courts to decide, Lorgat believes the case has become part of a wider discussion about the relationship between activism and litigation.
He discussed how shrinking space for advocacy is not unique to South Africa.
The case has attracted attention well beyond the parties involved, prompting renewed discussion about the balance between protecting freedom of expression and safeguarding individual reputation.
As the matter proceeds through the courts, it is likely to remain a closely watched test of how South African law approaches politically charged speech, public interest activism and the limits of defamation.
For more on the case, watch the video below:
Image via Rod Suskin.
