The Film and Publications Board (FPB) has retracted a contentious notice that stirred widespread controversy regarding the regulation of online content in South Africa. The notice, which aimed to penalize internet users and service providers for disseminating “misinformation” online, sparked immediate push-back from various civil society organizations and media bodies.
Issued last month under sections 18H and 27A of the Films and Publications Act, the notice outlined severe penalties for individuals and internet service providers (ISPs) found guilty of spreading false information online. It positioned ISPs as accountable for hosting such content and mandated them to report instances of misinformation or face hefty fines and potential imprisonment.
According to the FPB’s notice, “misinformation” was defined as false information disseminated by individuals who genuinely believed it to be true, while “disinformation” referred to false information knowingly propagated by its disseminator. Penalties for those found guilty included fines of up to R150,000 and/or a two-year prison sentence, with ISPs facing even more severe consequences.
However, the notice faced immediate resistance from prominent media watchdogs and advocacy groups, including Media Monitoring Africa, the South African National Editors Forum, the Campaign for Free Expression, the Press Council of South Africa, and the SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition. These organizations united to challenge the FPB’s move, issuing an ultimatum to withdraw the notice or face legal action.
Central to their objections was the broad scope of the definition of “misinformation,” which encompassed individuals who unknowingly spread false information. Critics argued that such a definition could potentially stifle freedom of expression and journalistic inquiry, as well as impose undue burdens on ISPs to police content beyond their capacity.
William Bird, the director of Media Monitoring Africa, voiced concerns on 702 Talk Radio, highlighting the FPB’s attempt to introduce a new category of criminal offense without adequate public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. He emphasized the need for transparent and inclusive processes when enacting regulations that could impact fundamental rights and freedoms.
The FPB’s decision to withdraw the notice comes in the wake of mounting pressure from civil society and media stakeholders, signaling a victory for free expression and digital rights advocates. While the FPB has a mandate to regulate certain aspects of media content, the attempt to regulate online misinformation and disinformation was perceived as overreach by many observers.
In response to the withdrawal, media advocacy groups have called for broader dialogue and consultation on the regulation of online content, emphasizing the importance of balancing freedom of expression with the need to combat harmful content online. They urge policymakers to adopt evidence-based approaches that protect democratic values while addressing legitimate concerns about the spread of misinformation.
Moving forward, the debate over online content regulation in South Africa is likely to intensify, as stakeholders seek to find common ground on how to address the challenges posed by misinformation without compromising essential freedoms. The FPB’s retreat underscores the importance of robust public engagement and accountability in shaping policies that affect the digital landscape.
As the digital age continues to evolve, South Africa faces the ongoing task of navigating the complex terrain of online discourse while upholding democratic principles and safeguarding the public interest. The withdrawal of the FPB’s notice represents a pivotal moment in this journey, prompting reflection and dialogue on the future of online governance in the country.
