The Films and Publications Amendment Bill that was deliberated by the Portfolio Committee on Communications in Parliament last week has caused an uproar as people debate whether it is strictly an internet regulation or the government’s attempt at stifling and censoring freedom of speech.

Also known as the Internet Bill, the proposed law aims to regulate the online distribution of digital films and digital games, among others, but it has come under attack from media organisations such as Multichoice, organisations such as the Right2Know campaign, and opposition parties such as the DA.

“The Bill contains serious censorship clauses and is unconstitutional. It affects ordinary users because it creates the potential for everyone’s online postings, even on Facebook or Twitter, to be subjected to censorship by the Film and Publication Board. It also potentially violates people’s right to privacy, because the Film and Publication Board will apparently want to keep a list of all subscribers to websites that feature adult content. Ordinary South Africans deserve both internet freedom and the right to freedom of expression online, and don’t need the Film and Publication Board to act as their grandmother,” Murray Hunter, spokesperson for the Right to Know, told the News.

The DA’s main concerns about the Bill are as follows:

The Bill seeks to impose the pre-classification of content distributed online, stating that no digital film may be distributed unless it has been classified by the Film and Publication Board. This makes it unconstitutional.

The Bill also states that any person who distributes a film or game classified as ‘rated X18’ online must keep a register of all instances where access was granted to a user, whose name, address and verifiable age must be noted in the register kept for that purpose. The CEO of the Film and Publication Board will have the right to access this list.

This is is an unjustifiable breach of the right to privacy.

Further – the Bill uses vague and overly broad terminology. For example, it defines digital film as ‘Any sequence of visual images recorded in such a manner that by using such recording, such images will be capable of being seen as a moving picture and includes any picture intended for exhibition through the internet or any other electronic medium or device.’

This means that every South African with a social media account would have to register with the Film and Publication Board as a distributor and pay the requisite fee for pre-classification.

Section 5 of the Bill gives the Minister the power to appoint a Penalty Committee in consultation with Cabinet. This Committee will have the right to impose fines of up to R150 000 and refer cases for prosecution for contraventions of the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996. Matters of law enforcement and criminal penalties should be left to the Police and the National Prosecution Authority.

“The combination of the Online Regulation Policy and the Bill provides the Film and Publication Board with wide powers that amount to nothing short of censorship. This Bill is a thinly-veiled attempt at internet censorship, disguised as the protection of children against exposure to pornography, as observed recently in many less-than-democratic jurisdictions,” said Phumzile van Damme, the DA’s national spokesperson.

Related article:

Fireside may have sparked the first bill of rights