STATEMENT: Media freedom organisations protest government censorship plan

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 and may be 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 Act makes provision for exemption matters little, as to impose this requirement of seeking an exemption is tantamount to obliging the media to seek a licence to publish.

It should also be borne in mind that Icasa's [Independent Communications Authority of South Africa] 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 [and with the media clauses] in the Constitution. They note that the deadline for public representation is August 10 - far too soon to make 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 to make verbal protest and objections before the committee.

Ends

A licence to censor?

In fact, it will not only damage the much-praised freedom of expression clause in our Constitution, it will be in direct conflict of Article 16 in the Human Rights Bill.
That's the gist of the media release sent out by various media role-players.
Indeed, South Africa's "groot kanonne" in terms of media freedom watchdogs opened fire on the latest serious threat to media freedom in our media freedom entrenched country.
In a strongly worded media release the three media freedom watchdogs condemn a proposed amendment to a law that would, if passed, come down to outright censorship of the news media in South Africa.
The South African National Editors' Forum, the SA Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) said in a statement they are "deeply shocked by the government's intention to impose direct censorship" on the media.
According to the media release, the act that regulates films and publications in terms of classification, and how they should be displayed in stores, is said to be amended by the Film and Publications Amendment Bill 2006.
Previously, a clause in the act has exempted the news media from these provisions. This meant print and broadcast news media could operate without having to get pre-publication permission. And, says the media release, this exemption dates back for decades. What's more: it was even honoured by the Nationalist apartheid government.
But according to the media release, it seems now the Home Affairs Ministry has proposed, without warning or consultation with the media, that this exemption will be removed in the amended legislation. Earlier this week, the ministry declined to take part in a radio debate. The South African public is still much more than less in the dark of what the reasoning is behind this move.

What would it mean for our news media?
Simply put: if accepted, the print and broadcast news media will be dictated to by the Film and Publications Board.

Why is this not acceptable?

In practice this will mean that the media will be subjected to pre-publication censorship. The worse case scenario is that it will probably be "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", says the media release.
Also: "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."
Just imagine a newsroom operating under such circumstances. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms.
Thanks to a system of self-regulation, our print and broadcast media are regulated by the industry itself: the Press Ombud, Icasa and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. These institutions are indeed the watchdogs of the watchdogs.
Sanef, Misa and the FXI say 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".
And then of course, the mind-blowing scenario: a proposed law that is making a joke of an article in our Constitution. The three organisations rightly point out that this amendment conflicts with the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution.
At least we know the media freedom watch dogs were on full alert.
But it will also be a good thing to know exactly what motivated whom, and why, to try and get these amendments through. It certainly is not in the interest of our democracy.
As we say in the Cape: Wakker slaap.
* By Lizette Rabe
Ends