In an urgent application before him the Honourable Justice Chetty had to consider whether he should confirm an interim interdict ordering respondent to remove defamatory statements about applicant on her Facebook page and restraining the respondent from posting further statements in this regard. 
The parties were not married to each other but were the biological parents of a minor child.
Applicant regarded the postings on Respondent as defamatory and demanded that she remove it from her Facebook wall. The posting resulted in an active debate taking place between respondent and her friends and related to an incident relating to the applicant’s care or neglect of his minor daughter.
Respondent contended that she removed the posting and that she did not consider the content thereof as defamatory. Applicant on the other hand contended that he had a prima facie right to approach the court to ensure that his reputation was not further harmed as he considered the postings to be harmful to him as a father, but also that it could have a detrimental impact on his business reputation and character. An interim interdict was granted.
In considering whether to grant a final interdict the court referred to a passage from H v W where it was found that it is not good enough to as a defence against defamation that the published words may be true, it must also be to the public benefit or in the public interest that they be published. ‘The courts do not pander to prurience.’ 
Final relief was granted in so far as the court ordered the respondent to remove the posting on her Facebook wall.
Even though you feel that your partner has wronged you it is wise to refrain from venting your frustrations on social media or any other public platform pending the finalisation of your divorce action or even subsequent to the finalisation thereof (even if your spouse cannot see your posts). This behaviour may have an impact on your suitability to claim primary care of minor children and might be considered as alienating the minor children from your spouse. Your spouse’s attorney might use this against you in the divorce proceedings.
 M v B (10175/2013)  ZAKZPHC 49; 2015 (1) SA 270 (KZP) (10 September 2014)
 H v W  2 ALL SA 218 (GSJ)