I grew up in the era of the Film and Publications Board. It regulated what we could and couldn't see on TV. It was the primary means of censorship employed by the National Party government. As a means of controlling minds, it was deeply insidious, although it did give us the excuse to proudly buy that great weapon against censorship, Scope.
ICASA has now issued a "code of conduct" for broadcasters. It is not a voluntary code, like ISPA's code of conduct for its members. It has no moral authority, but it does have legal teeth. Unlike ISPA, ICASA has legal powers that can cripple or destroy anyone who does not comply with the code, whether they agree with it or not.
It has already amended its original draft, because of violations of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Yet at its core, it exists exclusively in order to violate this right.
Not only does it violate the right to freedom of expression, but its language is vague and subjective.
“Gratuitous violence”, for example, is not permitted before the watershed period, which runs from 9pm to 5am. What constitutes gratuity? Who determines it? The extremes are probably easy to judge. But, what qualifies a government bureaucrat to judge whether violence is central to a plot? Why would ICASA's bureaucrats be any better at it than those of the Film and Publications Board?
I've seen many shocking films, where the violence appeared to be gratuitous, but upon reflection, strengthened the impact or plot of the film. Sometimes, intelligent friends differed with me on this point, and professional critics were divided. If a broadcaster, in good faith, judges violence to be funny, or important to a plot, why should a bureaucrat, wielding the right to impose fines or even revoke licences, second-guess them? How can a bureaucrat be the judge, when even professional critics argue about it? If gratuitous violence is not depicted gratuitously, is it still gratuitous? The code doesn't even bother with such subtleties, yet it arms bureaucrats with the power of gratuitous force.
Music videos are specifically mentioned. Sorry, but most music channels on television are imported. ICASA has no more control over their content than MultiChoice does. As the code of conduct stands, these channels will not be permissible, at all, between breakfast and bedtime. MTV and VH1 will have to go. Channel O can be shut down, or shoved back into its midnight slot, because it's South African and subject to the jurisdiction of South African censors. Or did you really expect them to remove all glorification of violence and objectification of women from their daytime music videos?
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less. I don't watch them, and I find most modern music videos crude, stupid, or both. But I do not arrogate to myself the right to judge for other people.
Never mind that modern technology is making the notion of a "watershed" obsolete. Personal video recorders are routinely used, repeats in off-peak hours are frequent, and digital content is even broadcast on the Internet. (Illegally, of course, because like the old Nats, we don't really want such modern dangers polluting the minds of our people. You can't do social engineering with a freethinking population.)
The code says that some prohibitions will not apply to "a bona fide scientific, documentary, dramatic, artistic, or religious broadcast, which judged within context, is of such nature".
So, who decides that? A stock example is Andreas Serrano's photograph, Piss Christ. It depicts a crucifix submerged in the creator's urine. I consider it not only deeply offensive (despite not being a Christian), but moreover, I believe it was designed purely to offend and outrage. Danish cartoonists have nothing on this guy. His work is tasteless, gratuitous and crude, and has no redeeming qualities at all. Yet it was displayed in major art galleries, won major awards, and earned Serrano $15 000 of taxpayer money. Clearly, someone disagrees with me, on some "bona fide" basis "judged within context".
If gratuitous violence is not depicted gratuitously, is it still gratuitous? The code doesn't even bother with such subtleties, yet it arms bureaucrats with the power of gratuitous force.
Ivo Vegter, ITWeb contributor
My point is that he should have the freedom of speech to spew whatever offensive filth he wishes. It shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money (that's a different argument), but he should also not need to seek the approval of a panel of bureaucrats with nothing better to do than look at the bared breasts and 'skop, skiet en donner' that they believe are so corrupting to the minds of the nation.
Perhaps the most dangerous provision in the code relates to news and comment. The regulator requires news to be truthful, accurate, fair, and presented in the correct context. Editors spend years learning to judge this, and even then, it is a judgement that may differ from station to station, and editor to editor. What qualifies ICASA to second-guess them?
Opinion is toast too. If you broadcast comment, the opposing view must be given equal time. No argument may stand on its own merits. If someone makes a capitalist argument on TV, the broadcaster is required to present a socialist counterweight. If someone makes a case for evolution, the broadcaster is required to bring a bunch of creationists to argue the other side. Al Gore's global warming jeremiad must be balanced by a sceptical documentary. If someone opposes violence against women, the broadcaster "shall make reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of view". Now where's that eloquent rapist we had on the panel last week?
This is insane. Sure, I sometimes dream of a media intelligent enough to be critical and to show opposing points of view. In other situations, it is clearly absurd to expect this.
In all cases, however, it is none of the state's business to dictate what the media will or won't broadcast. It's none of the state's business to judge, for viewers, what they may and may not watch.
I thought our constitution was about freedom. In practice, however, it seems to be about who gets to control our minds. All freethinking South Africans should reject ICASA's code of censorship with the contempt it deserves.
Hands off our media!
Share