The revised Film and Publications Bill — adopted by the National Assembly — was unconstitutional and deeply flawed, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) said on Friday.
The contentious piece of legislation originally sparked an outcry from the media industry, which resulted in a revised version appearing before Parliament on Thursday.
But Sanef warned that the revised Bill in its current form was no better, and likely to lead to a Constitutional Court challenge between the media and the government as the danger of pre-publication censorship had not been eradicated.
”Sanef strongly opposes the revised version of the Films and Publications Amendment Bill … The original protests of the media industry that the Bill provided for pre-publication censorship have been met only fractionally,” the forum said in a statement.
Sanef said the media’s objections to the Bill in its initial form were not understood and largely ignored.
There was still wide scope for pre-publication censorship in the Bill and publishers and members of the public would have to exercise ”great care” in complying with its complex provisions.
In granting exemptions to newspapers and online publications, the Bill failed to take into account that there were about 500 publications that were not members of the Newspaper Association of South Africa (NASA).
”It was pointed out to the committee that the exemption that had originally been granted to the newspaper industry — and which the Bill planned to remove — was itself not sufficient protection because it applied only to members of the NASA.”
The worst feature of the Bill, affecting both the public and journalists, was the ”spy-on-your-neighbour clause”, Sanef said.
The clause requires that a person report to authorities any knowledge or suspicion about another’s involvement in child pornography, and failing to do so would result in that person being jailed.
Sanef also took issue with the Bill’s definition of ”matters of public interest”.
”The reference to the publication of hate speech is wider than the constitutional limitation and is thus unconstitutional and a serious error is the failure to exclude academics from the provisions of the Bill.”
Sanef requested that the Bill be withdrawn and for the government to make good on its promise to hold in-depth consultations between lawmakers and the media industry regarding the Bill.
The Democratic Alliance on Thursday said the intention of the Bill was not primarily to fight child pornography, but to muzzle the media.
The Inkatha Freedom Party expressed concern over what the Bill did not do in curbing child pornography, rather than what it did.
The Bill was adopted by the House, with the objections of the DA, and will now go to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. — Sapa