» Please tell us this is a mistake

Please tell us this is a mistake

August 10th, 2006

One can only hope that the proposed new Film and Publications Act - which seems to try and draw news media into its ambit for the first time - is a gross mistake. If it is intended to extend the arm of censorship over the news media in this way, then it is not only outrageous and unconstitutional, it is also unworkable.

A new Bill currently before parliament removes the exemption from this law that has always applied to newspapers at least. If that exemption is not there, then newspapers and other news media have to either submit to pre-publication censorship or apply for individual exemption. The former would be unworkable, given the pace of contemporary news publication, and the latter totally unacceptable, in that it would essentially give the authorities power to licence news media.

Let us hope they tell us quickly that this is a bad mistake. Otherwise, we have a fight on our hands.

This is what the National Editors’ Forum, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Media Institute of Southern Africa had to say about it:

South Africa’s three main media freedom organisations, SANEF (South African National Editors’ Forum), SA Chapter of Misa (Media Institute of Southern Africa) and FXI (Freedom of Expression Institute) are deeply shocked by the government’s intention to impose direct censorship on the print and broadcast media.

The Film and Publications Act which regulates films and publications other than the news media by censorship and classification measures which determine the age groups precluded from viewing certain films and which publications should be prohibited or how they should be displayed in stores, is to be amended by the Film and Publications Amendment Bill 2006.

A clause in the Act has exempted the media from its provisions thus enabling the print and broadcast news media to operate freely and without interference or pre-publication censorship. This exemption dates back for decades — it was even honoured by the Nationalist apartheid government.

But the Home Affairs Ministry has now proposed without any warning or consultation that the exemption will be removed in the amending legislation.

If this proposal is accepted by parliament, the effect will be that the print and broadcast media will be subjected to the dictates of the Film and Publications board. The practical effects will be that the media will be subjected to pre-publication censorship, probably forced to expunge large amounts of their news coverage from their pages or broadcasts and submit to procedures which will prevent papers from being distributed on a daily or weekly basis and result in broadcasters having to delay news broadcasts. The fact that the Bill makes provision for exemption matters little, as to impose this duty on the media amounts to seeking licence to publish.

It should also be borne in mind that Icasa’s constitutionally guaranteed role is to regulate broadcasting; no other institution is entitled to interfere with its ability to do so, as this would amount to a violation of Icasa’s independence. Any attempt to second-guess the regulatory role of Icasa must not be allowed, which will be the case if the Bill goes through.

SANEF, Misa-SA and FXI condemn this action by the government. The media industry is regulated by the Press Ombudsman, Icasa and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which hold the media accountable for ethical and other breaches of their codes of conduct. As there is no need for the Film and Publications Board to usurp this function, the only reason that can be advanced for the government’s move is that it wishes to censor the media.

SANEF, Misa-SA and FXI are also extremely concerned about the re-classification of publications proposed in the Bill, aspects of which we consider to be unconstitutional as they will greatly increase the scope for censorship of content. Also, the Bill extends the scope of material restricted to adult shops in an overbroad manner, and smacks of a ’morality police’ approach towards regulating publications.

The three organisations point out that the amendment conflicts with the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution.
They note that the deadline for public representation is August 10 — far too soon to made adequate representations — and record their intention to send a detailed protest to the Home Affairs parliamentary portfolio committee dealing with the Bill. They will also request an opportunity of making verbal protest and objections before the committee.

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism

24 Comments Add your own

1. Jude Mathurine | August 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pm

Constitutionally the amendment will not stand as it would allow for the censorship of all forms of expression over and above the limitations provided for by the constitution (propaganda for war, hate speech, incitement to imminent violence). It is clear that the drafters ought to realise that the omission is unconstitutional and would entail allude that the Film and Publications Board could assume role of state censor whereas there are judicial and extra-judicial structures in place to police media mores. In any event, the omission could amount to an attack on individual liberty as the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information are individual freedoms that these days can be fully exercised by anyone with access to a phone line and a modem. The notion of state censorship is therefore an anachronism and I for one hope that the exclusion was merely an oversight on the part of overzealous legislators.
2. MR NELSON B DLAMINI | August 15th, 2006 at 9:19 am

Why is this amendment introduced now, when the president is somehow implicated in the arms deal? This will prevent the freedom of press! I hope it will be rightfully debated and failed in parliament or else our country is headed for doom!
MR NB DLAMINI
DUT JOURNALISM DPT.
3. thandi zondi | August 15th, 2006 at 9:22 am

THIS MUST BE SOME KIND OF JOKE! I THINK THAT THIS ACT HAS BEEN PASSSED BECAUSE THABO MBEKI IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE ARMS DEAL.THIS IS SOMEKIND OF PROTECTION FOR HIM.IM STUDYING JOURNALISM AND DONT WANNA BE GUIDED BY THIS ACT.
4. Craig Lewis | August 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pm

I was absolutely shocked and outraged after reading about the new Film and Publications Act which has been proposed. As an aspiring journalist the thought that print and broadcast media may be set to face direct government censorship is extremely worrying. Our media industry has functioned extremely effectively ever since democracy has reigned and this proposal would appear to be a direct attack on our freedom of expression. What would possess the government to launch this attack is therefore beyond me.

Craig Lewis
Journalism dept. DUT
Durban
5. Sanele Nkosi | August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

I realy don’t understand why this has to be done by home affairs, maybe can someone please explain to me the relationship between home affaris and media, then i will be able to comment.
6. ZWELAKHE SHANGASE | August 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pm

This is absolute rubbish! We strive on press freedom! What is the goverment thinking?
We fought for our freedom and we definitely deserve freedom of the press.
The govt is bored and just wants something to do but this is a sinister move to censor news!
I hope that this bill isnt passed in parliament and it shouldnt be even debated!
We are now moving from an independent state to a dictactorial nation, yet the PRES. preaches democracy and freedom in o0ther african countries whereas, hes doin it. He’s a HIPOCRIT!
7. mr thabiso walter ndlovu | August 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pm

remember how president mbeki squizzed and squashed himself to be A.N.C president i was shocked and suprised back then but if he succedes this time i won’t cause i now know the type of person he is. why was his documentary not broadcasted only he and god know and the more we protect him the more we loose the freedom of press. from a concerned journalism student.
8. Michelle du Plessis | September 27th, 2006 at 8:32 am

I am truly shocked at the implications of this bill. I am currently living in the Netherlands and daily experience the benefits of an open, free and tolerant democracy. It is vital to our progress that open and free speech and continues.
I hope that all South Africans who value their future will stand together and fight this bill. The complacency in our society to take a stand should come to an end. If we allow this bill to pass, we willingly take the first step to becoming just another African country. It is my deepest and most sincere wish that South Africa exceeds it’s potential and that it stays as inspiring as it is to the rest of the world.
9. Hermann Hanekom | September 27th, 2006 at 9:08 am

Well well it is not taking us long to catch up to Zimabawe, the Gambia and similar ilk. The Freedom Charter (Kliptown 1955), the SADC Treaty and the Constutive Act of the African Union are merely publications of fiction and President Thabo Mbeki’s African Renaissense is not a dream but a nightmare. Denial of freedom of the press is denial of democracy.
10. Clive Human | September 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am

I feel the bill is a good idea provided its not abused and that the news must still be news. I don’t believe that everything will have to be submitted to the board prior to publication unless its risque, harmful to children or in violation of an individuals constitutional rights. I believe the press (and TV) has brought this upon themselves especially the tabloids and their ‘over the top’ content. I also believe that the major newspapers are guilty of ‘pimping’ as far as the adult smalls are concerned when clearly prostitution is illegal in this country.
11. Baxolile Mvunge | September 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm

This is one of the most outrageous Bills that have been tabled in parliament this year. I say this as I am concerned with the way that it is going to be handled, also who might have come up with such nonsense as this would infringe upon the constitutional right of freedom of speech. Why do we need organisations to decide to what we as the masses want to read. Everyone has a choice into what kind of news that they want to read and also which publications they are interested in as we buy them based on the ideological agenda that a publication has taken.

I would like for to us to push very strongly against this as if the publications then have a situation where they have to apply for exemption in censorship. We will see the ones that are blindly loyal to the government being exempted because they are not at limbo with the gov. Lets have free media and also academic freedom so that we could build a society that is very intellect and also critical.

Baxolile Mvunge
Student in SU
12. Annette | September 27th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Please start a petition that we can all sign and forward to relevant people
13. Rufus Xiin | September 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

This is depresing stuff, but it was just a matter of time. SA is heading the same way as all other African countries. When the rulers feel the heat they tamper with the constitution (if there is one) in order to protect themselves. And you can kick and scream, they will make sure it gets pushed through. It won’t be long before we find ourselves down at the levels of the Zimbabwes, Angolas, etc, of the world.
14. Michael Beckingham | October 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pm

This matter merely highlights the veracity of the statement by ( I speak under correction here) Cicero which read ‘Governments will always be the enemies of men” So much for the celebration of 10 years of Democracy?
It is sad that the very men and women who suffered under the previous governments restrictive and abusive legislation are so quickly resorting to similar methods in an attempt to conceal their mistakes instead of willingly admitting error, this kind legislation gets proposed. What is disturbing is that this kind of proposal is always hidden under a noble cause such as the protection of minors etc when in truth it has a far more sinister motive, namely the consolidation of power
15. Charles Meadows | October 2nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm

This must be, at worst, an expensive, time wasting joke.
The very back bone of democracy is the freedom of the press, remove that and we cripple the principal and ideal. It doesn’t sound workable, feasible or legal. Let’s not jump the gun and begin to scream and shout conspiracy, Zimbabwe etc. The courts can’t and won’t uphold it and that will, in the end prove the strength or lack of within our South African democracy.
16. Anthony Caetano | October 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pm

I have read the amendment bill at http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/bills/2003/b61-03.pdf and I don’t see what the fuss is about — the print media is to be censored only if they publish something which could be classified as child porn… This doesn’t seem too onerous, or am I missing something? Or is the Schedule 10 which is objectionable? I.e. does the hate speech then also fall under the Review Board?
What exactly needs to be submitted to the Review Board that is causing the problem?
17. Dewald | March 28th, 2007 at 8:16 am

If this proposal is accepted it will be a disaster !
The Newspapers and TV media will be subjected to the dictates of the Goverment. They will censor and force their own news and views. What is happening to “The Freedom of Expression” ? It seems to me that the Goverment of SA is heading in the Zimbabwe direction ! Or what must I think ???
Dewald
18. Rita | May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 am

I’ve been working on databasing and analyzing SA legislation for the last few years, and I’d say about 10% of the legislation being churned out is hopelessly useless. Either the language is so unclear as to be absurd, the potential transgressors are not defined or are too widely defined, some of the “Act” are not even been published but everyone treats them as having been published, some have never come into force but everyone acts as if they are in force, some have been published three times and although only the first validly so everyone accepts the latest and invalid version. Its the same with Act 65 of 1996

And although I’ve flown the story in front of journo’s no-one has been interested, and they don’t see that this is a major prejudice to our democracy. And now there is disbelief as to how it has come about. It’s simply incompetence which has allowed those with an agenda to get away with it.
19. Justin | August 14th, 2007 at 7:57 am

We might aswell let Mugabe take Mbeki’s place. It is stupid and the goverment needs to be more concerned about the important things in this country like Health care, crime, jobs etc.
20. Clive, you're missing the point bru' | October 9th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

You probably have some valid points there, but that’s irrelevant. The overriding concern here is that the power that this gives to government is a disaster to the freedom of not only the media, but the personal freedom of every South-African. This gives the state the power to prevent the publication of anything they don’t like, on whatever grounds, not only moral. This bill WILL become a political tool abused by the ANC if we grant them this power.

This bill must be prevented at any cost.
21. Riette van Niekerk | November 5th, 2007 at 7:26 am

We need to stand up and “fight�? for our freedom. If we are not allowed to hear or speak the truth, or what is really happening, we have no democracy left in South Africa.
22. Peter Marais | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Any attempt to control the Media by the Government must be stopped dead in it’s tracks, if this happens we will be well on the way to being another Zimbawe. This attempt is because the Government does not like seeing the trtuth as it(and they can’t blame the apartheid regime any more) is and they are being made to look like the fools most of them are.
23. Marcus Fairall | August 1st, 2008 at 8:18 am

Agreed. we need to start a petition.
24. Mark | August 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Zim here we come. The ANC has lost face, no wonder they are thinking of this.