The latest version of the Film and Publications Ammendment Bill which was revised by the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee still contains unconstitutional provisions.
The Bill has been in process quite a while, it’s a 2006 Bill, and during the process its had some of the more fantastical and unlikely provisions removed. But despite being reviewed by the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee a number of glaringly unconstitutional provisions remain. The most glaring is subsection 1 of Section 24A which reads:
“24A. (1) Any person who knowingly distributes or exhibits in public a film or game without first having been registered with the Board as a distributor or exhibitor of films or games shall be guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction, to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both a fine and such imprisonment.”
That cuts quite a swathe. It would be illegal for you to put a video clip on a file sharing site, because that’s a moving image, and it’s being distributed. It doesn’t matter if the clip is of a politician talking, clouds blowing overhead, or your dog chasing a ball. You are distributing, and it’s film.
And games…? If you create an educational game that teaches maths skills it’s illegal to give it away.
So what does the Constitution say? By now, since we’ve had our Constitution since 1996, that’s twelve years, one would hope that everyone would know what the Bill of Rights requires. Sections 16 states:
“16. Freedom of expression
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
- freedom of the press and other media;
- freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
- freedom of artistic creativity; and
- academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
- The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
- propaganda for war;
- incitement of imminent violence; or
- advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
Which means amongst other things that I can make my own films and games without first having to ask for permission from a bureaucrat, pay a fee and wait until he gets around to giving me a licence.
It’s true, we do sometimes allow the rights in the Bill of Rights to be limited for particularly important objectives. The objects of the Bill are also being amended by the Bill. These are the proposed objects in the current Bill:
“Objects of Act
2. The objects of this Act shall be to regulate the creation, production, possession and distribution of films, games and certain publications to—
(a) provide consumer advice to enable adults to make informed viewing, reading and gaming choices, both for themselves and for children in their care;
(b) protect children from exposure to disturbing and harmful materials and from premature exposure to adult experiences; and
(c) make use of children in and the exposure of children to pornography punishable.”
Nothing in these objects can justify criminalising the entire population, every septuagenarian who shows a video of wildlife he took on holiday to the local Rotary club, every South African who loads video clips of anything onto video sharing sites, or their blogs. The amendments are meant to prohibit child pornography and the 12 other offences created by the Amendment Act have at least some connection, however remote, with that purpose. It’s not just a matter of these objectives though. There is no objective which would justify the nullification of the right of freedom of expression in this way.
So why, when it’s so obviously unconstitutional, is it still in the Bill?
