"Expression will constitute hate speech when it seeks to violate rights of another person or group of persons based on group identity"
You can't really fault the judge in this case - Afriforum didn't have independent expert witnesses and the lay witnesses were too vague to make a convincing argument. Due to Afriforum sh*tting the bed with their witnesses, the court had to rely on the literal vs figurative nature of how the song is interpreted and whether a 'reasonable person' would interpret the contents of the song as Literal or Figurative.
The issue of HOW the Equality Act is interpreted, fair vs unfair discrimination, is also raised. There was also the issue of how section 10(1) of the Equality Act was declared unconstitutional and invalid by the CC subject to amendment by parliament:
'Subject to the proviso in section 12, no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words that are based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm and to promote or propagate hatred' -> this removed the 'to be hurtful' test of the freedom of expression. This turned out to be an important factor in determining whether the song is causing HARM or HURT.
The court essentially found that, given the atrocities of what happened to the marginalised in the past: 'Difficult as it may be to uphold, the society has a duty in terms of his principle to allow and be tolerant of both popular and unpopular views of its members' EFF vs SANEF case was also brought up where the CC stated: "...even if the prohibited utterances in question could qualify as hate speech on its terms but fail to incite, or reasonably construed as inciting harm, no liability could arise in respect of section 10 of the Equality Act".
Basically, the court found that Afriforum only had a case if the average person would interpret the song LITERALLY as it is AND be called to incite HARM - not hurt.