A discussion in regard to a campaign by certain Christians to prevent the showing of the Golden Compass has, as could be expected, progressed into a discussion of religion and freedom of speech. Everything progressed on a civilized and educated level until people like Richard Catto started participating. From there on everything decent hastily tries to escape through the back door.
I think it would serve some purpose if we could have a look at what precisely ‘freedom of speech’ entails and what can be said freely within the boundaries of the law. Section 16 of the Constitution provides that
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to -
(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
The aspect in regard to hate speech has been criminalized in terms of the the Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill, 2004 of which I could just obtain a copy of the draft. I believe that the final act would not differ too much from it. Section 2 provides for the following:
Offences and penalties relating to hate speech
2. (1) Any person who in public advocates hatred that is based on race,
ethnicity, gender or religion against any other person or group of persons that could, in
the circumstances, reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to—
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) intimidate or threaten;
(d) promote or propagate racial, ethnic, gender or religious superiority;
(e) incite imminent violence;
(f) cause or perpetuate systemic disadvantage;
(g) undermine human dignity; or
(h) adversely affect the equal enjoyment of any person’s or group of person’s rights
and freedoms in a serious manner,
is guilty of an offence.
In conclusion it can be said that you are free to express yourself for as long as you do not advocate hatred based on (in this case) religion and ethnicity which could reasonably be construed as having the intention of being hurtful or harmful; promoting religious (or ethnic) superiority; undermine human dignity, etc.
Going through the comments on Thought Leader and Cape Town News commenters should determine for themselves whether they are acting within the boundaries of the right of free expression and not transgressing the law.
J.C.Grobler.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Entries (RSS)
Powered by FireStats