Media cries foul at proposed Bill

By Leon Engelbrecht, ITWeb senior writer

Johannesburg, 15 Mar 2007

Media organisations accuse Parliament of trying to ram through changes to the Film and Publication Act that will introduce pre-censorship in the media, something not even the National Party attempted in the hey-day of apartheid.

The changes will have far-reaching consequences for Internet service providers, among others.

The SA National Editors' Forum (Sanef), the SA Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) and the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) say they "are shocked by the reported announcement by Patrick Chauke, chairman of the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee, that he plans Parliamentary hearings for the Films and Publications Amendment Bill soon so the Bill can come before Parliament within the next three months".

The organisations "believe this undertaking ... is contrary to the promise made by minister in the presidency Essop Pahad, home affairs minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nquakula and deputy minister Malusi Gigaba that there would be extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Bill was presented to Parliament. It also conflicts with the decision to set up technical committees to investigate ways in which the ministry's aims could be met without undermining constitutional guarantees of media freedom."

The media vigorously protested at the first draft of the Bill last year. It pointed out that it introduced the prospect of pre-publication censorship, which was counter to the media freedom guarantees in the Constitution, apart from the practical difficulties that would arise for the distribution of newspapers and online content. It also alleged there had been no consultation with the media beforehand.

No balance

The amendments, if enacted as they stand, would require "any person who creates, produces, publishes or advertises for distribution or exhibition in the republic any publication that contains visual presentations, descriptions or representations of... sexual conduct; propaganda for war; incitement to imminent violence; or the advocacy of hatred based on any identifiable group characteristic, shall submit, in the prescribed manner, such publication for examination and classification to the classification office, before such publication is distributed, exhibited, offered or advertised for distribution or exhibition".

This means news reports or online content about Jacob Zuma's rape trial last year would have had to be censored, as would reports about the ongoing Iraqi civil war - as well as any jokes about Van der Merwe, the Irishman and the Scotsman.

The Online Publishers' Association and the Internet Service Providers Association expressed their reservations about the Bill last October, saying it failed to "achieve the sought-after balance between cost and benefit to society".

Sanef, Misa and the FXI also noted "with deep concern" a statement reported in the Sunday Times last weekend that Gigaba remained convinced the media had to be regulated to limit child pornography and the exposure of children to pornography.

"There was a strong opinion from the media that the Bill went too far. We did not agree. I still don't think so," Gigaba was quoted as saying. However, he said he would work with editors to find a compromise if they showed a real commitment to the protection of children.

Democratic Alliance Home Affairs spokesperson Sandy Kalyan says she has been asking after the status of the Bill for the last three weeks. "The minister has told the programming committee that the Bill will be re-tabled with 'further amendments' by May. We have to wait for that before we can react. The Bill before the committee is not the one that will be enacted, according to what the minister [Mapisa-Nquakula] said."