Film and Publications Board (FPB) CE Shokie Bopape-Dlomo says the ”media frenzy” over proposed amendments to the Film and Publications Act took her by surprise.
Reports that newspapers would have to forward articles for pre-publication classification were based on a misunderstanding, she said in an interview this week.
”There is no way we could regulate newspapers every day; we’re not that naive. What we wanted to do was to protect children from potentially harmful material,” said Bopape-Dlomo. ”Magazines have been classified since 2004 and no magazine has complained. There is no need to panic.”
The intention, she said, was to make newspapers aware of the guidelines to be followed to ensure they did not violate children’s rights.
The FPB announced in July that it would seek an amendment to the Act, removing the exemption enjoyed by newspapers belonging to the South African Press Union. These are excluded from the Act’s requirement that periodicals be classified in terms of their content — specifically violence, explicit sex, nudity, unsavoury language and ”prejudicial matter”. The legislation also regulates films and publications through age restrictions and the giving of consumer advice.
In contrast with the pre-1994 regime, the FPB cannot ban any material except child pornography, which may not be lawfully produced, possessed or distributed.
A draft amendment Bill has run into a storm of protest that it curtails freedom of speech. The Cabinet decided last week that the Department of Home Affairs — under which the FPB falls — should consult interested parties before going ahead with the legslation.
Bopape-Dlomo said the move to amend the law stemmed from a conference on child pornography in June last year, attended by child rights activists, cellphone operators and safety and security agencies.
”Some people wanted a change in the law, saying the Act is too lax; others wanted a total ban on pornography,” she said.
In the FPB’s 2004 annual report, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba wrote that some print media exploited gaps in the law, under the cover of free speech, to print and sell ”adult images” on streets used by children.
”This has posed the challenge more strictly to regulate the media, cellphones and the Internet industry. Clearly we cannot leave it upon their own initiative to regulate themselves.”
Bopape-Dlomo insisted there was a gap in the law that needed to be filled. Technically, a newsÂÂpaper could publish pornographic material without warning readers of the potential shock awaiting them, without breaking the law.
”That is what e.tv said when Parliament asked them about televising soft porn; that no legislation prevented them from doing it,” said Bopape-Dlomo. Another deficiency of the law was that the public had no outlet for complaints. ”We are not bothered unless there is a complaint or we stumble on child porn. We are respectful in how we deal with publications.”
She conceded that consultation could have been wider. ”But we knew a parliamentary process was under way, and there was no thought that there would be this much panic.”