The$South$African$Draft$Online$Regulation$Policy$as$a$form$of$censorship$

by$proxy$
by"Enrico"Calandro,"Research"fellow"at"Research"ICT"Africa"
On#4#March#2015,#the#Film#and#Publications#Board#(FPB)#of#South#Africa,#an#office#of#the#
Department#of#Communication,#published#a#draft#Online#Regulation#Policy#(Notice#182#in#
Government#Gazette#38531).##
#
The#draft#Online#Regulation#Policy#(Draft#Regulation)#proposes#farOreaching#regulation#of#
online#content.#The#Draft#Regulation#is#controversial#not#only#in#principle#as#it#would#
restrict#freedom#of#expression#online,#but#also#from#a#more#practical#perspective,#with#
regards#to#implementation.#The#following#blogOpost#discusses#the#potential#impact#of#such#
regulation#on#users#civil#and#political#rights,#particularly#freedom#of#speech#and#
expression,#by#extending#its#application#beyond#the#remit#of#the#FPB#on#protecting#
childrens#rights#for#a#safe#media#environment.#Further,#it#explores#unintended#
consequences#of#implementing#such#regulatory#system."
"
The"classification"of"online"content"before"it"is"published"restricts"freedom"of"expression."
Any"pre?publication"review"of"content"must"comply"with"the"democratic"and"
constitutional"norms."This"position"is"supported"by"eminent"scholars"on"internet"
governance"who"have"expressed"concerns"on"filtering"content"through"classification"as"
this"regulatory"practice"can"significantly"harm"freedom"of"expression"in"democratic"
societies"(See"Brown,"2008;"McIntyre,"2013).""
"
As"observed"by"Kreimer"(2006,"in"McIntyre,"2013),"online"content"classification"may"
create"a"risk"of"invisible"and"unaccountable"censorship"by"proxy"as"it"combines"three"
different"regulatory"trends"to"control"information:"
"
First,"a"risk"associated"with"online"content"classification"is"that"once"this"mechanism"is"
established"for"a"narrow,"protective"purpose,"it"can"be"easily"extended"to"achieve"
different"goals."In"this"respect,"Mueller"(2010)"has"argued"that"under"the"aegis"of"child"
protection,"internet"content"regulation"can"result"in"networked"censorship."Mueller"
(2010:190)"observes"that"emotional"appeals"to"the"children"have"deliberately"been"
exploited"as"the"entering"wedge"for"a"broader"reassertion"of"state"control"over"internet"
content."
"
Second,"the"effect"of"a"focus"on"intermediaries"or"intermediary?based"regulation""such"
as"Internet"Service"Providers"(ISP)"and"social"media"platforms"?"(Boyle,"1997;"Swire,"
1998)"may"result"in"over?blocking"online"content."Since"these"private"players"have"
greater"technical"capability"to"screen"communications,"they"can"act"as""internet"points"of"
control"(Zittrain,"2003)."The"amount"of"content"which"does"not"comply"with"
classification"guidelines"may"be"disproportionate,"and"online"platforms"and"other"
intermediaries"may"favour"an"over?blocking"system"for"online"content"which"protects"
themselves"from"governments"sanctions,"rather"than"to"protect"users"content"from"
censorship"(Kreimer,"2006)."
"
Third,"the"use"of"self?"or"co?regulation"in"preference"to"legislation"as"a"possible"starting"
point"for"regulation"of"information"technology"(Koops"et"al.,"2006)"offers"governments"
the"opportunity"to"outsource"enforcement."It"also"minimises"accompanying"costs,"and"
indemnifies"them"from"claims,"loss"or"damage"arising"from"online"content"classification"
systems."
"
In"the"last"decade,"in"an"attempt"to"limit"online"availability"of"harmful"content"for"

1"

children,"the"practice"of"internet"content"regulation"has"become"common"in"several"
democratic"countries"and"has"been"implemented"in"numerous"jurisdictions"(McIntyre,"
2013)."In"addition,"many"information"and"communications"intermediaries"have"adopted"
their"own"systems"to"filter"such"content,"often"self?regulating"to"avoid"more"formal"
regulation.""
"
For"instance,"in"Australia,"a"classification"regulatory"regime"is"in"place"under"the"
Australia"Communications"and"Media"Authority"with"power"to"enforce"online"content"
restrictions"on"Internet"content,"hosted"in"Australia"and"maintain"a"black?list"of"
overseas"websites"for"use"in"filtering"software."However,"anecdotally"from"industry"
players"and"activists"the"online"classification"scheme"is"almost"wholly"ineffective."The"
scheme"is"complaints?driven"and"imposes"obligations"on"domestic"hosts."It"potentially"
includes"obligations"to"block"content"of"foreign"hosts;"but"this"aspect"has"never"been"
implemented."A"big"push"from"2008?2012"to"introduce"a"more"comprehensive"website"
blocking"regime"was"defeated"by"civil"society"organisations"(Suzor,"informal"
conversation,"May"2015).""
"
Australia"is"further"about"to"pass"a"bill"to"introduce"website"blocking"for"websites"that"
facilitate"copyright"infringement."However,"the"term"facilitate"is"not"quite"clear"but"there"
is"an"ongoing"enquiry"into"the"term"(Suzor,"informal"conversation,"May"2015)."
"
In"the"UK,"since"1996"a"response"to"child"abuse"images"has"been"given"by"the"industry."
The"Internet"Watch"Foundation"(IWF),"a"private"body"funded"by"the"internet"industry"
and"the"EU,"acts"in"collaboration"with"the"police"and"government."It"receives"public"
complaints"and"determines"whether"webpages"contain"potentially"illegal"material."
Although"the"system"has"developed"independently"without"any"legislative"basis,"it"has"
limited"procedural"safeguards"and"no"judicial"oversight"(McIntyre,"2013)."
"
Among"content"oversight"initiatives"from"the"private"sector,"YouTube"has"community"
guidelines"in"place"to"moderate"the"online"video"platform"at"the"backend"and"provide"
guidance"to"users"on"which"content"is"appropriate"and"allowed"to"be"published."In"
addition,"the"platform"has"in"place"a"reporting"system"which"allows"to"classify"harmful"
or"inappropriate"content"based"on"YouTube's"community"guidelines."Age"and"country"
restrictions"mechanisms"have"also"been"adopted."
"
Why$the$South$African$Draft$Regulation$could$result$in$online$censorship$by$
proxy"
"
From"a"constitutional"and"human"rights"perspective,"the"practice"of"pre?classifying"
online"content"as"envisaged"by"the"Draft"Regulation"goes"against"rights"protected"by"the"
South"African"Constitution,"the"Bill"of"Rights"and"by"the"Universal"Declaration"of"Human"
Rights"(UDHR)."
"
The"right"to"freedom"of"expression,"as"envisaged"by"the"Constitution"of"the"Republic"of"
South"Africa"(Bill"of"Rights),"is"inspired"by"Article"19"of"the"UDHR,"which"states"that"
everyone#has#the#right#to#freedom#of#opinion#and#expression;#the#right#includes#freedom#to#
hold#opinions#without#interference#and#to#seek,#receive#and#impart#information#and#ideas#
through#any#media#and#regardless#of#frontiers."
"
Article"16"of"Chapter"2"of"the"South"African"Bill"of"Rights"grants"everyone"with"the"right"
to"freedom"of"expression,"including"not"only"freedom#of#the#press#and#other#media"but"
also"freedom#to#receive#or#impart#information#or#ideas.""
"
Users"capacity"to"produce"and"distribute"content"is"enhanced"by"social"media,"which"not"
2"

only"provide"platforms"to"receive"or"impart"information"or"ideas,"but"have"also"been"
driving"mobile"internet"connectivity"in"African"countries"including"South"Africa"(Stork"et"
al.,"2013)."Nevertheless,"the"Draft"Regulation"applies"severe"restrictions"mostly"on"users"
freedom"of"imparting"information"and"ideas"through"social"media"as"it"requires"that"as#
at#31st#of#March#2016,#no#online#distributor#shall#be#allowed#to#distribute#digital#content#in#
the#Republic#of#South#Africa#unless#such#content#is#classified#in#terms#of#the#Boards#
Classification#Guidelines"(Art"5.4.2"The"Draft"Online"Regulation"Policy,"FPB)."As"a"
consequence,"users"freedom"of"both"receiving"and"imparting"content"is"compromised"
by"content"filtering"and"blocking"put"in"place"by"the"proposed"draft"regulation"on"online"
content"classification"and"pre?approval"by"the"Board."This"system"of"preventive"
measures"may"put"a"brake"to"a"positive"trend"of"increasing"internet"access"and"use"via"
social"media"and"indeed"the"hallmark"promotion"of"freedom"of"expression"in"South"
Africa.""
"
While"the"South"African"Constitution"grants"rights,"it"imposes"some"restrictions"on"
freedom"of"expression"in"cases"such"as""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."
"
However,"the"authorisation"by"the"Board"of"the"content"to"be"published"is"not"only"
related"to"specific"categories"of"content"restricted"by"the"South"African"Constitution"but"
it"seems"to"apply"to"all"the"digital"content"produced."For"this"reason"the"Draft"Regulation"
may"result"in"a"system"of"networked"censorship"since"the"Boards"Classification"
Guidelines"can"include"any"kind"of"content"that"someone"may"find"objectionable"but"that"
it"may"not"be"harmful"for"children"or"fall"into"the"specific"limitations"on"freedom"of"
expression"as"provided"for"in"section"16"of"the"Constitution."In"addition,"the"1996"Films"
and"Publications"Act,"which"established"the"Film"and"Publication"Board,"its"mandate"and"
its"objectives,"requires"only"distributors"of"films"and"games"to"register"as"distributors."
Therefore,"the"Draft"Regulation"lacks"authority"to"request"any"online"content"platform"
or"online"content"distributor"to"register"with"the"Board"(Limpitlaw,"2015)."On"this"basis"
the"Draft"Regulation"appears"to"extend"beyond"FPBs"remit,"whose"main"aim"is"to"
protect"children"from"exposure"to"distributing"and"harmful"material"and"from"
premature"exposure"to"adult"material"by"way"of"classifying"films,"games"and"certain"
publications."It"has"been"observed"(Jorgesen,"2013)"that"measures"to"prevent"the"use"of"
the"internet"to"violate"the"rights"of"children"must"be"narrowly"targeted"and"
proportionate"and"the"effect"of"measures"taken"on"the"free"flow"of"information"online"
must"be"given"due"consideration."
"
In"relation"to"childrens"rights"protection,"article"25"of"the"Universal"Declaration"of"
Human"Rights"(UDHR)"protects"childhood"by"entitling"special#care#and#assistance"for"
children."In"terms"of"child"protection"over"the"internet,"it"translates"on"the"one"hand"to"
giving"children"the"freedom"to"use"the"internet;"on"the"other,"on"protecting"them"from"
the"dangers"associated"with"the"internet"(Jorgesen,"2013)."
"
From"a"practical"perspective,"considering"the"amount"of"digital"content"produced"and"
distributed"across"the"internet,"classifying"all"online"content"is"unfeasible."Several"
measures"included"in"the"Draft"Regulation"place"both"financial"and"procedural"burdens"
on"content"and"platform"providers."The"draft"regulation"requires"that"any"online"
platform"or"online"content"provider"needs"to"apply"for#registration#as#film#or#game#and#
publications#distributor"(Art"5.1.1)"and"for"an#online#distribution#agreement"in"order"to"
classify#its#online#content#on#behalf#of#the#Board,#using#the#Boards#classification#
Guidelines#and#the#Act"(Art"5.1.2)."Specifically"analyzing"the"text"of"the"Draft"Regulation,"
it"requires"the"payment#of#the#fee#prescribed#from#time#to#time#by#the#Minister"(5.1.2),"
for#each#title#submitted"(5.1.3),"the"provision"of"facilities#to#store#all#classified#content#
3"

for#audit#and#related#purposes"(5.1.5.),"and"the"display"of"the"Film#and#Publication#
Board#classification#rating#and#logo"(5.1.9)."This"draconian"mechanism"of"co?regulation"
may"create"a"system"which"makes"it"easier"for"intermediaries"to"over?block"online"
content"than"deal"with"complaints"and"gives"the"government"and"the"FPB"the"
opportunity"to"monetise"from"a"system"of"networked"censorship."
"
Conclusions"
"
In"its"current"form"the"draft"regulation"is"too"broad,"generally"unworkable,"open"to"
abuse,"and"unconstitutional."The"likely"negative"impact"on"the"publics"ability"to"produce"
and"access"content"online"as"well"as"negative"impacts"on"online"media"freedom"suggest"
that"it"is"overly"restrictive."
"
Governments"ability"to"control"content"that"is"available"online"has"profound"
implications"for"free"expression"and"censorship."Beyond"the"more"obvious"negative"
impact"on"users"civil"and"political"rights,"there"is"a"need"to"understand"unintended"
consequences"and"the"linkages"of"online"content"classification,"censorship"and"freedom"
of"expression"within"the"polity."In"particular,"we"need"to"understand"better"how"this"
form"of"regulation"may"impact"on"internet"use"and"access"in"low?"and"middle?income"
countries"such"as"South"Africa."This"has"to"be"assessed"before"putting"in"place"a"system"
which"may"hamper"a"positive"process"of"internet"use"driven"by"user"generated"content"
and"social"media."Regulating"online"content"by"classification"may"impact"on"the"ability"of"
users"to"create"and"post"local"content"on"social"media"and"therefore"it"may"have"severe"
implications"on"demand?side"stimulation"strategies"acknowledged"in"the"National"
Broadband"Policy,"SA"Connect,"as"essential"to"driving"broadband"adoption."
"
The"main"objective"of"government"should"be"to"preserve"the"internet"as"an"engine"for"
social"and"economic"development,"and"therefore"to"create"the"conditions"for"political,"
social"and"economic"innovation,"enabling"all"stakeholders"to"contribute"to"the"
maintenance"and"growth"of"the"network,"including"governments,"businesses,"and"users.""
"
An"internet"policy"should"focus"on"creating"a"favourable"investment"environment"to"
allow"the"ICT"sector"to"grow,"of"which"content"production"is"a"key"enabler."
"
An"internet"policy"should"encourage"and"facilitate"an"open"and"competitive"online"
landscape,"reaffirming"users"and"platform"providers"rights"to"free"speech"and"
expression.""
"
Systems"for"reporting"children"pornography"or"harmful"content"as"envisaged"by"the"
South"African"constitution"should"not"place"any"further"restrictions"on"digital"content"
production"and"distribution"than"those"mentioned"in"the"Bill"of"Rights"and"in"the"1996"
Film"and"Publication"Act"for"off?line"content."The"identification"of"the"most"appropriate"
mechanism"to"enforce"the"rule"of"law"in"the"online"space"should"result"from"a"
consultative"process"between"intermediaries,"online"users,"the"government,"civil"society"
organisations"and"academia."The"role"of"FPB"in"this"process"should"be"proportionate"to"
its"authority"over"specific"categories"of"content"regulation"and"within"the"objectives"and"
mandate"of"the"1996"Film"and"Publication"Act.""
"
Users"and"private"sector?driven"initiatives"may"support"FPBs"process"of"identifying"
content"which"is"potentially"disturbing"or"harmful"to"children"in"particular"age"groups"
or"which"may"remain"under"the"restrictions"imposed"by"the"South"African"constitution."
Since"community"guidelines"have"already"been"implemented"by"platform"providers"such"
as"YouTube,"it"is"recommended"that"the"FBP"should"draw"on"the"work"done"on"these"
guidelines,"and"collaborate"with"the"intermediaries"and"civil"society"organisations"to"
4"

institutionalise"an"open"system"for"reporting"harmful"content"and"users"who"do"not"
respect"constitutional"restrictions"to"freedom"of"expression"and"the"diffusion"of"child"
pornography."
"
Take$Action!"
"
Many"civil"society"organisations"have"already"expressed"their"concerns"and"dissent"on"
the"Draft"Regulation,"defined"as""Africa's"Worst"New"Internet"Censorship"Law""by"the"
Electronic"Frontier"Foundation."Association"for"Progressive"Communications,"SOS"
coalition,"Right2Know,"and"the"Freedom"of"Expression"Institute"on"Friday"22"May"
convened"a"roundtable"in"Johannesburg"to"unpack"and"understand"how"the"FPBs"Draft"
Regulation"will"impact"on"users"civil"and"political"rights"and"on"the"internet"sector"more"
broadly."Participants"to"the"meeting,"which"included"representatives"from"civil"society"
organisations,"private"sector,"media"groups,"library"associations"and"internet"and"
telecommunications"industry"associations,"all"agree"that"the"Draft"Regulation"must"be"
scrapped.""
"
The"Films"and"Publication"Board"has"opened"a"Public"Consultation"until"the"15"July"2015."
Submissions"should"be"emailed"to"policy.submissions@fpb.org.za"or"hand"delivered"to"
the"FPB"head"office"at"ECO"Glade"2,"420"Witch"Hazel"Street,"ECO"Park,"Centurion,"0169"
and"marked"for"attention"Ms."Tholoana"Ncheke."
"
Another"way"to"stop"the"FPBs"Draft"Regulation"is"to"support"the"
#HandsOffOurInternet"petition"and"social"media"campaign"launched"by"the"South"
African"coalition"Right2Know;"or"sign"the"Amandla"campaign"by"SOS"coalition."
"
References"
"
Boyle,"J."(1997)."Foucault"in"Cyberspace:"Surveillance,"Sovereignty"and"Hardwired"
Censors,"University"of"Cincinnati"Law"Review,"177,"186."
"
Brown,"I."(2008)."Internet"Filtering:"Be"Careful"What"You"Ask"for,"In:"S."K."Schroeder,"
and"L."Hanson"(eds),"Freedom"and"Prejudice:"Approaches"to"Media"and"Culture,"
Istanbul:"Bahcesehir"University"Press."
"
Jorgesen,"R."F."(2013)."An"internet"bill"of"rights?"In:"Brown,"I."(eds),"Research"Handbook"
on"Governance"of"the"Internet."Edward"Elgar"Publishing"Limited."
"
Koops,"B.?J."et"al."(2006)."Should"Self?Regulation"be"the"Starting"Point?,"in"B.?J."Koops"et"
al.,"(eds),"Starting"Points"for"ICT"Regulation:"Deconstructing"Prevalent"Policy"One?Liners,"
The"Hague:"T.M.C."Asser"Press.""
"
Kreimer,"S."(2006)."Censorship"by"Proxy:"The"First"Amendment,"Internet"
Intermediaries,"and"the"Problem"of"the"Weakest"Link,"University"of"Pennsylvania"Law"
Review,"155,"11."
"
Lessig,"L."(1999)."Code:"And"Other"Laws"of"Cyberspace,"New"York,"NY:"Basic"Books.""
"
Limpitlaw,"J."(2015)."Film"and"Publication"Board"Draft"Internet"Regulation"Policy""
Framing"Discussion."Presentation."20"May"2015."
"
McIntyre,"T.J."(2013)."Child"abuse"images"and"clean"feeds:"assessing"internet"blocking"
systems."In:"Brown,"I."(eds),"Research"Handbook"on"Governance"of"the"Internet."Edward"
Elgar"Publishing"Limited."
5"

"
Mueller,"M."(2010)."Networks"and"States:"The"Global"Politics"of"Internet"Governance,"
Cambridge,"MA:"MIT"Press."
"
Suzor,"N."(2015)."Informal"conversation"on"online"content"classification,"13"May"2015."
"
Stork."C.,"Calandro,"E.,"and"Gillwald,"A."(2013)""Internet"going"mobile:"internet"access"
and"use"in"11"African"countries","In:"info,"Vol."15"Iss:"5,"pp.34""51."
"
Swire,"P."P."(1998)."Of"Elephants,"Mice,"and"Privacy:"International"Choice"of"Law"and"the"
Internet,"The"International"Lawyer,"32,"991."
"
Zittrain,"J."(2003)."Internet"Points"of"Control,"Boston"College"Law"Review,"44,"653."

6"