Mobile operators and Internet service providers could have their licences revoked by communications regulator Icasa if they fail to comply with new legislation being developed to govern online censorship in South Africa.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the cabinet said it had approved the submission of the Films and Publications Amendment Bill to parliament. The amendments to the Films and Publications Act of 1996 provide for “technological advances, especially online and social media platforms, in order to protect children from being exposed to disturbing and harmful media content in all platforms, physical and online”, the cabinet said in the statement following its regular fortnightly meeting.
Of particular concern to ISPs and telecommunications providers will be the cabinet’s declaration that the companies must “protect the public and children during usage of their services” and Icasa “will not issue licences or renewals without confirmation from the Film and Publication Board (FPB) of full compliance with its legislation”.
Democratic Alliance MP Gavin Davis said last month that the online regulation policy proposed by government will require all individuals and organisations who upload digital content to first register with the FPB, pay a fee prescribed by the minister of communications, and either submit the content to the board for classification or self-classify in accordance with the board’s classification guidelines.
Anyone who does not comply with the policy is liable to pay a fine or face a prison term of up to six months, Davis said.
He said legitimate concerns over the draft policy include the following:
— According to clause 7.4 of the policy, the FPB has the power to have any content deemed “potentially harmful and disturbing to children” taken down. When read with the Films & Publications Act, the policy will empower the board to ban (by way of an “XX” classification) any online content that is “degrading” or “promotes harmful behaviour”. The broadness of these terms gives the government significant latitude to proscribe content that does not fit in with the governing party’s political agenda and worldview.
— The policy appears to apply to any person who uploads online content, be it via Facebook, Instagram, a blog, or any other online platform. This opens the door for the state to impinge on citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of expression and to impart information.
— The policy will place an unnecessary administrative and financial burden on individuals and organisations who upload content. They will be required to pay a registration fee, appoint staff as classifiers and be forced to delay the publication of content until the pre-classification is complete.
— Many individuals and organisations will simply not comply with such onerous requirements, and there is no way that the FPB will be able to monitor and police all content uploaded. For example, it is estimated that 320 hours of content is uploaded on to YouTube every minute.
“The FPB’s stated intention for drafting this policy is to protect children from exposure to harmful online content. This is a noble objective, and one that the Democratic Alliance supports. But it is highly unlikely that the draft policy will achieve this goal. It is simply too impractical and costly to implement and police,” Davis said.
“On the other hand, there is every possibility that the online regulation policy could be used selectively to censor particular online content that the governing party does not like or runs counter to its political objectives.”
On 14 July, it was announced that there had been agreement in principle to defer the regulation of online press content to the Press Council of South Africa.
In a joint statement from the Interactive Advertising Bureau of South Africa, the South African National Editors’ Forum and Press Council, the organisations said that the FPB endorsed the revised press code which would regulate online press content in South Africa. — (c) 2015 NewsCentral Media
