Cellphone instant-messaging service MXit is destroying marriages and allowing children to be lured into traps by sexual predators, says Independent Democrats (ID) leader Patricia de Lille, and should therefore be regulated by the government.
In a statement posted on the ID website at the weekend, De Lille also frowned upon the countless blogs on the internet, “where [anonymous] members of the public can with impunity slander and defame individuals and organisations they do not like”, and said these, too, should be regulated.
Her comments have angered many South African bloggers who had barely recovered from stinging comments by Sunday Times columnist David Bullard, who recently criticised them for producing anonymous, low-quality and sometimes offensive writing, going as far as saying such bloggers should be named and shamed.
However, De Lille says she has been misunderstood. “I am a living example of fighting for freedom of speech,” she told the Mail & Guardian Online on Tuesday. “The first court case in the new South African for the right to freedom of speech was fought by me and won.”
In her statement, De Lille said a “surge in activity among young children on MXit” has left them vulnerable to sexual predators and paedophiles.
“I am making these comments in the broad context of living in a sick society where the social fabric has been destroyed, and where we struggle to rebuild that social fabric,” she said on Tuesday, adding that she appeals to parents to be proactive in controlling such services accessed by their children.
“I can put it out there for debate, but the response lies with the government,” she said. “I am merely taking up people’s concerns [with MXit].”
“To tolerate a platform for this kind of sexual predation and deviance against our young children is inexcusable,” De Lille said in her statement, adding: “This has gone too far and it is time for government to intervene to protect our most vulnerable. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute.”
Blog battle
On Tuesday, De Lille told the M&G Online that — unlike established standards of free speech applicable to print and electronic media that do not allow the dissemination of defamatory or slanderous information — bloggers can slander and defame others with impunity because they can remain anonymous.
Said her internet statement: “We recently came across a blog with slanderous comments about a famous rugby player, a respected reverend in the church and a prominent entertainer. This blog also included one of our senior politicians, councillor Simon Grindrod. He reported this matter to the Caledon Square police on Tuesday May 15 and they are currently investigating it.
“Because the problem is that we couldn’t trace the author of the defamatory statements, we will also ask the NIA [National Intelligence Agency] to investigate.”
The ID cannot reveal the website address or its content as that would help spread the defamation and slander it contains, she said.
“Our legal team has advised us that in terms of the law anyone who republishes, reprints or rebroadcasts defamation of this nature, published on any blogging website, is liable for civil and criminal action. The only way to put a stop to this is to use every legal option to hold not only the website, but also the perpetrator responsible. This kind of thing must not go unchallenged,” the statement said.
Going ‘George Bush’
South African bloggers have reacted strongly to De Lille’s words.
Said Evan Morris on the IOL Polls page: “There are already laws to prevent defamation and there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. ISPs [internet service providers] are required to supply user details in criminal investigations.”
“What is De Lille’s response? To go all George Bush Patriot Act on us!” read a comment on PickledBushman.com.
“I think the concept of freedom of speech completely evades Patricia de Lille,” it continued. “Freedom of speech does not mean censoring people. Freedom of speech does not mean centralisation of information or power. Sure, there are some disgusting people on the internet, but on the same token we have disgusting people in Parliament. Are we going to ban Parliament because there are woman abusers in it?”
Jonathan Carter pointed out: “No matter what they [the government] implement, there will still be ways to anonymously post content, while the legislation will just hurt the people who want to be heard.”
However, another blogger’s comment differed. “Please read the history. A blogger made defamatory statements about an ID councillor. They have laid a charge with the police, but there appears to be a problem in determining the blogger’s real identity. De Lille has thus called for regulation so that such people can be held accountable for their actions,” wrote Twylite. “Regulation is not necessarily censorship. That is one form of regulation, and there are alternatives.”
“I don’t stand for censorship,” De Lille emphasised on Tuesday, “and I am not bashing everybody. It is not all internet users; it’s just a minority.
“Is there not a way, without dismissing the concept of blogging and MXit, to make sure that when people are defamed or slandered, they are able to take the same action to which they are entitled when it happens in print and electronic media?”
On the net
South African bloggers on De Lille’s statements