English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Can an Emoji Be Considered as Defamation? A Legal Analysis of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485