Complaint about use of offensive and discriminatory words, such as “perversion” and “abnormal” 
describing homosexuality in radio programme where a “medium” (Michaela) advises the public on their life situations. Programme alleged to affront complainant’s dignity, to contain unfair comment and alleged hate speech. It was broadcast on 31 October 2007 between 20h00 and 21h00 on Jacaranda FM. The Tribunal held that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend within reasonable limits. Although freedom of expression must be limited when it sanctions, promotes or glamorises violence based on sexual orientation, no traces of this could be found in the broadcast. It was also found that although specific reference was made to homosexuals, there was no advocacy of hatred or incitement to cause harm. Regarding Clause 35 of the Code that states that comment shall be an honest expression of opinion and that it shall be presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment, the Tribunal found that it should be clear to audiences that the advice given by Michaela constitutes her own opinion, which she is entitled to air on the airwaves. However, opinions must be balanced when a controversial issue of public importance is discussed. This requirement was partly achieved by Michaela’s statements that people should have compassion for homosexual people and try to understand them. Since the segment formed part of a call-in programme, the opportunity also existed for the public to have called in and presented opposing views. The concern raised by the complainant about exposure of gay teens and that it could lead to depression, suicide and bullying by heterosexual teens, was dismissed because the programme was not specially designed for children and after 20h00 the onus to protect children against harmful material, substantially shifts to parents. Regarding the protection of dignity, Clause 38 states that this right may be overridden by a legitimate public interest. It was found that a legitimate public interest existed in this case and that the likely reasonable listener (adult, sophisticated and modern), would not find the contents of the programme beyond the contemporary standard of tolerance. If the context (advice given to a mother regarding the sexual preferences of her daughter) is taken into account, the broadcast cannot be seen as injurious or an assault on the dignity of homosexuals. If the material contained in the programme is judged within this context, it does not exceed the respondent’s right to freedom of expression. Although the remarks might have been in questionable taste and offensive to sensitive listeners, no contravention of the Code could be found and the complaint was not upheld.
CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT Case-No-04-2008