The reporting during news broadcasts on an alleged racial incident at a school that occurred 
between a white female teenager and her mother, and a black female 16 year old, led to wide media coverage. Several complaints were received from viewers of the Respondent TV station, which is also the Public Broadcaster in terms of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999, as amended. Complaints of a similar nature were also received about the 8:00 news bulletin on one of the radio stations, SAfm.
Complainants alleged that the coverage amounted to trial by the media, the insert clearly sympathizing with the alleged victim and sensationalizing a matter that should be sorted out in the neutral atmosphere of a courtroom. The alleged victim, who is clearly a minor, should also have been protected against media coverage. The racial language that she said her attackers had used, was also racially exploitative and amounted to incitement to racial hatred.
Held:
- That the electronic media had the duty to broadcast and the public the right to receive such information in terms of section 16 of the Constitution of the Republic.
- The Constitutional Court has held that the right to freedom of expression also includes the right to convey information that offends; and, necessarily, this also includes the right to hear such information.
- The inserts clearly stated that the alleged attackers had been approached for comment and that they were not available for comment. Although this would not always be a complete defence, this information did provide the necessary balance in this case.
The complaints were, accordingly, dismissed.