DA’s Legal Crusade Targets Cannabis Activist Bobby Greenhash: A Silencing of Dissent or Justified Action?

In a controversial move, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has set its sights on prominent cannabis activist Bobby Greenhash, accusing him of spreading outrageous opinions and fake news. The latest development adds to growing concerns about the DA’s alleged suppression of dissent, with accusations of media censorship and citizen abuse in the Northern Cape.

Greenhash, known for his vocal advocacy for cannabis and countercultural views, has become the target of the DA’s legal efforts. The party, already under scrutiny for allegedly blocking a resident from a local WhatsApp group, is now allocating “constituents’ funds” for legal battles against a social activist.

The accusations against Greenhash gained momentum when a media statement by DA Shadow Minister of Justice and Constitutional, Adv Glynnis Breytenbach, highlighted a case involving a Richards Bay businessman, Sheldon Cramer. Operating under the TikTok handle @bobbygreenhash, Cramer was accused of spreading fake and manipulated content, including a fabricated audio clip implicating DA Federal leader John Steenhuisen in a questionable financial transaction.

The DA asserts that Cramer’s actions fall under the Cybercrimes ACT 19 of 2020, targeting the making, publishing, and disseminating of “threatening and defamatory statements.” The party emphasizes the potential real-world consequences of spreading false information, particularly in the context of the upcoming elections.

While remaining unbiased, Dagga Magazine questions the DA’s selective response to alleged rights violations. The magazine highlights allegations of the party’s silence on accusations of its censorship and dictatorship after a resident was reportedly blocked from a local DA-led municipal ward WhatsApp group. The DA’s lack of response to both the residents and the media raises concerns about the party’s commitment to the constitutional rights of citizens who do not align with its political agenda.

As the legal battle now unfolds, questions arise about the limitation of free speech and the role of political parties in addressing disinformation. The DA’s pursuit of legal action against individuals spreading fake, defamatory, or fraudulent content raises concerns about potential implications for freedom of expression in South Africa.

The case against Greenhash prompts a broader conversation about the intersection of politics, social activism, and the evolving landscape of disinformation in South Africa. As the legal proceedings unfold, the nation watches closely to see how this clash between the DA and a prominent cannabis activist will impact the broader discourse on free speech and political dissent.

Adv Glynnis Breytenbach MP Voice Note on Bobby Greenhash

Tweets of Bobby’s TikTok Video

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.