This is part 9 of my story as I uncover the truth about what happened at St Stithians College (JHB, South Africa) in June 2020, bring the perpetrators and accessories to account, and try to stop the ongoing damage that is being done to children and teachers. Other parts are archived here.
In the realm of South African academia, where debates should thrive, freedom of expression should reign supreme, and accountability should be paramount, there lies a tale of a battle between an educational institution and an independent publication. This skirmish, peppered with legal jargon, public interest, and a touch of humour, earns the moniker #StStithians to #StCapture to #StSnotklap.
In a letter of complaint to The Daily Friend dated 8 Nov 2022, attorneys representing St Stithians College raised concerns regarding the editorial standards of the publication. They specifically cited three of my opinion pieces published by The Daily Friend which they say contained false and defamatory allegations. The attorneys state that the articles portrayed St Stithians College negatively and had led to vitriolic and malicious comments and hate speech on the platform. They demanded the removal of the offending articles and comments.1 2 3
A few days later, a letter from the attorneys representing The Daily Friend was dispatched to the legal representatives of St Stithians. This letter marked yet another chapter in what can only be described as a series of #snotklaps delivered to the prestigious school and its officials.
The genesis of this legal tussle was a failed attempt by St Stithians to silence me as an occasional writer on The Daily Friend. Their efforts came just days after publishing the third installment of my story on the platform. These letters, and the subsequent exchanges within, offer insights into the broader issue of free speech, the right to criticize, and the responsibility of educational institutions to engage in constructive dialogues rather than stifling dissent.
Here are five nuggets from the attorneys for The Daily Friend:
"The content of the articles written by Mr. Martin Humphries and published on The Daily Friend is not incorrect, was reasonable and justifiable and, moreover, was published as part of a broader public debate and is therefore in the public interest."
This statement succinctly encapsulates the essence of the issue at hand. It asserts the veracity and validity of the articles I authored and underscores their relevance within the public discourse. When a publication such as The Daily Friend tackles issues of public interest, it is imperative that open dialogue is facilitated rather than suppressed.
"We kindly request you to point us to the particular comments referred to in order for our client to properly assess these comments and respond should it be necessary."
This nugget delves into the issue of reader comments. St Stithians took issue with what they perceived as ‘hate speech’ among the readers who commented on my articles. However, instead of simply reacting defensively, The Daily Friend extended an invitation to provide specific examples. This gesture demonstrates a commitment to addressing concerns in a constructive and evidence-based manner.
"Our client regrettably notes your client’s precluding position with regards to replying to Mr. Humphries’ articles. Regardless, our client herewith openly invites your client the opportunity to respond to any and/or all of Mr. Humphries’ articles."
In a clear display of openness to engage in dialogue and debate, The Daily Friend extended an invitation to St Stithians to respond to the articles in question. This offer stands as an embodiment of the principles of free speech and open discourse, providing an opportunity for all sides to present their viewpoints.
"Lastly, our client hereby offers to avail one of its writers to visit your client to discuss the events described by Mr. Humphries in his articles published on The Daily Friend."
This fourth nugget takes the commitment to dialogue a step further. The Daily Friend offered to send one of its writers to St Stithians to discuss the events described in my articles. This offer demonstrates a willingness to engage and reflects the publication's dedication to fostering a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
“That there have been a number of articles published on other reputable websites prior to the articles on The Daily Friend which levelled similar criticism against your client”.
The response from St Stithians? Crickets.
One cannot help but wonder why St Stithians initiated this legal correspondence in the first place. Perhaps it was an attempt to allocate more resources toward legal and consultants' fees. However, as this exchange unfolds, it becomes increasingly apparent that this battle is about more than just a clash of words—it is about principles, accountability, and the very essence of South African discourse.
The term #snotklap, a quintessential South Africanism, is loosely translated to "a slap so hard the snot flies." While the conservative side may counsel waiting for another courtroom verdict before casting judgment, the creative side whispers, "Why wait?"
In a society where free speech is a cherished right and where educational institutions play a pivotal role in shaping the future, it is imperative that issues of public interest be discussed openly and without fear of reprisal. As the legal exchanges unfold, the question remains: will St Stithians acknowledge their transformation from #StStithians to #StCapture, or will they heed the call for constructive dialogue and become #StSnotklap no more? Only time will tell.