In February this year a Tribunal of this Commission found in favour of the respondent, who 
complained that the presenter of a programme on SAFM, one of the radio stations of the SABC, had not intervened when a guest on the programme said that she had said that “Blacks raped and they were savage beasts who could not keep their penises in their pants” or words to that effect. The Tribunal directed the SABC to broadcast a correction and that the BCCSA had found against the SABC (SAFM). Leave to appeal to this Tribunal was granted on application of the SABC.
The Appeal Tribunal held that it should be emphasized that it is irrelevant whether the presenter knew the complainant or whether she is a well known personality and journalist. The issue is whether a reasonable presenter in the position of the presenter in this matter would have acted differently from the presenter in the present matter. Each case must be decided on its own merits and is, of course, dependent on whether the matter is of “public importance” or “a controversial issue of public importance”. As stated in earlier cases, the said phrases must, in the interests of freedom of speech be given a narrow meaning. The reference to the view of the complainant hits at the heart of her racial views and even if the presenter did not know the complainant, he should immediately have reacted by questioning the remark and stating, in the interest of fairness, that her view should also be obtained. The Tribunal believes that the matter was a matter of public importance and controversy since the remark amounted to a substantial invasion of the complainant’s dignity. To expect a presenter to react to such a statement does not, in the view of the Tribunal, amount to a requirement which would chill speech. It falls in the same category as defamation, which also places a limit on free speech.
In the result the Appeal Tribunal holds that clause 35 of the Code was contravened by the SABC. The presenter omitted to intervene in the interests fairness.
Since the Complainant had the opportunity to respond soon after the broadcast, the Appeal Tribunal does not believe that it is necessary to direct that the complainant should be afforded a further opportunity to reply. Furthermore the Appeal Tribunal is of the view that given the response of the complainant – which happens, in the view of the Appeal Tribunal to have been effective and clear – it is also not necessary to direct that the decision should be broadcast. The SABC is, however, in terms of the sanction paragraph of the Commission’s Constitution, reprimanded for the contravention.
The appeal as to the merits accordingly fails. The appeal as to the sanction is successful in so far as the directive to broadcast a correction is set aside and it is substituted with a reprimand for the contravention.