SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Only once in a while does an Internet censorship law or regulation come along that is so audacious in its scope, so misguided in its premises, and so poorly thought out in its execution, that you have to check your calendar to make sure April 1 hasn't come around again. The Draft Online Regulation Policy recently issued by the Film and Publication Board (FPB) of South Africa is such a regulation. It's as if the fabled prude Mrs. Grundy had been brought forward from the 18th century, stumbled across hustler.com on her first excursion online, and promptly cobbled together a law to shut the Internet down. Yes, it's that bad.
But don't just take our word for it—read some of its provisions for yourself. First, the regulation applies, in the first instance, to films and games (regardless of subject matter), as well as to publications containing certain loosely-described forms of sex, violence and hate speech.
What kind of content might we be talking about here? Much of the preamble of the document talks about sex. Indeed, sex sells, and it sells censorship legislation as well as it sells cigarettes and soft drinks. However the regulation, even on its face, goes much further. Its background section gives an example of non-sexual videos that, even under the current law, were issued a classification by the FPB—videos depicting a Pretorian pastor "ordering members of his congregation, some of whom were minors, to graze like cattle and drink petrol to prove that humans can eat anything provided by God". Under the new proposed regulation, the FPB could simply order such videos—which are obviously newsworthy—to be removed from the Internet.
Of course, there is much more - so read and be grateful that, unless you live in South Africa, things are never quite as bad as they might seem...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:15PM
I apologise for misunderstanding your apology. I misunderstood the sentiment with which you said that you "struck a nerve". Such is the nature of written comunication. Of course I should not entirely blame you for the enormous amount of anti-Afrikaner sentiment that went along with the global opposition to Apartheid. And as I said, some of my people are racist jerks. There are also more than a few idiots who heard from Daddy that Apartheid wasn't as bad as the ANC. (Daddy wasn't black, of course.) They make life intolerable for the rest of us whiteys, who must face the wrath of anyone they've wronged. (It would sound familiar if you were a minority.)
The new FPB rules are terrible but not my greatest concern. Just after the Wikileaks debacle we got a brand new censorship law. Under it any government department can declare any information a state secret. Public interest is not an excuse and it doesn't matter if the information is already public: It is simply a crime to talk to anyone about anything they say you can't. Longer sentence than murder. This law (the Protection of State Information Bill [wikipedia.org]) has been passed but the Prez, corrupt as he may usually be, sent it back and refused to sign it as-is. There is much corruption in the government and it is viewed by many (guess who's one) as simply a way to ban disclosure of officials' crimes.
Online pornography is already illegal under another law from a few years back. (Porn isn't illegal per se but it is illegal to get it anywhere but a licenced adult store. I doubt many people adhere to the law on this point; certainly not from what I've seen on their computers.)
The EFF makes a common beginner mistake in their interpretation of our constitution. If you read it carefully, you will see that it gives the Party carte blanche. (My favourite part of the constitution is how "discrimination [based on race, sex...] is unfair unless it is decided that it is fair". I.e. "we can do what we want but let's make it sound like we can't".) It has happened previously that the Party openly says that by letting the public complain about a new law they comply with the requirement for public participation: The actual feedback does not have force of law. Not to mention the Party regularly brings busloads of their members to "public" participation meetings, who shout down anyone with concerns. Since there is effectively only one party in parlaiment (long story for another day), whatever gets decided in Luthuli House goes in the law books so I don't doubt that both these censorship laws will go in. They may be reworded a little if the Party doesn't want to look too bad. Refer to the part about the constitution above.
PS: I'm technically half Dutch anyway. Wanna guess where all the crazy religious ideologies in the family are?