[1]        The beheading of a hostage by terrorists in Iraq once again drew worldwide shock and televisionrejection.  The Nguni TV news service broadcast explicit footage of the scene of a recent beheading at 19:30. The footage showed the captive’s head being severed by a number of cuts to his neck with what appears to be a butcher’s knife. A loud cry was audible to viewers just before the deceased lost consciousness. The Registrar received a number of complaints from viewers. The Monitoring and Complaints Unit of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa also lodged a complaint with the Registrar. The SABC apologized on all its services for the error, and the news editor was suspended pending the outcome of a disciplinary inquiry. So as to ensure that this tribunal would not express views that might prejudice the suspended employee in his disciplinary inquiry, we refrained from making comments as to his possible negligence. We have not heard his explanation, and it would be unfair to judge his decision. What we must, however, do is inquire whether, viewed objectively, the broadcast contravened the Broadcasting Code, and whether a sanction should be imposed on the SABC. It should be stated at the outset that the representatives from the SABC conceded that the Broadcast should not have taken place.  It was argued, however, that the clauses dealing with violence in the Code were not transgressed.  Nevertheless, it was conceded that the internal Code of the SABC had been transgressed. Mr Hassen argued that if this Tribunal were to find that the BCCSA Code had been contravened, a sanction such as a fine should not be imposed, given the steps which the SABC itself had taken to counter the contravention.

[2]        We have come to the conclusion that an explicit visual presentation of the beheading of a human being is a severe violation of human dignity (as is also, of course, the beheading itself), and that the effect of such a presentation grossly exceeds the mere causing of offence, in cases where the intention may be to shock the viewer into an awareness of actual events that are brutal and barbaric.  Such presentations go beyond mere offence in that they portray acts that are excessively cruel and inhuman, forcing the viewer into the position of voyeur, of unwilling and unwitting participant in barbaric acts that destroy the lives of actual individual human beings. In doing so, they violate the dignity of every human being that watches such acts. As such, people are by no means obliged to tolerate a broadcaster’s visual presentation of explicit details of man’s inhumanity and cruelty to man. The manner of presentation has, in the present instance, resulted in its being regarded as gratuitous. In real life, the actual details of the beheading were, of course, a reality, but the broadcasting of these visual details of what may only be described as the real life “slaughter” of a human being are deemed to be totally unnecessary, thereby rendering the broadcast of the actual scene gratuitous. The warning beforehand was not sufficient to negate the contravention of the Code.   The complaints were upheld.

[3]        In the light of the internal steps taken by the SABC, as well as the apologies broadcast, it was argued that in case of a contravention being found, a fine should not be imposed. However, the crucial importance of respect for dignity in our Constitution and the fact that a huge audience was subjected to the explicit and gratuitous detail of the beheading, have convinced us that a serious censure of the Commission is warranted. As a result of the internal steps taken by the SABC, we will not impose the maximum fine of R40 000. It is our view that a fine of R15 000 will do justice to the case. The SABC is also directed to broadcast during the first 10 minutes of all its TV news broadcasts a statement to the effect that the BCCSA Tribunal has ruled that the insert in question amounts to a contravention of the Code.

[2004] JOL 13236 (BCTSA)

CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT  Case-No-39-2004