CASE NUMBER: 06/2008 – PEPLER VS MFM – RELIGION

Two complaints were received from the same complainant: one regarding the use of the term “balls” for the male testicles.  The term was uttered more than once by the presenter during a programme broadcast just before 9:00 in the morning when most children would be at shool.  The Tribunal was informed that the target audience of the radio station was students and young people in the age group 16 – 28 years.  The Tribunal considered that the use of the offending word could be regarded as urban lingo and a slang word for the male testicles that was acceptable in certain circles.  The use of the word was considered to be in bad taste but not in contravention of the Code.  The other complaint related to a discussion on air of a sculpture of a figure purportedly to be that of Jesus Christ with a larger-than-life erection.  The presenters dramatized the effect that this sculpture would have on the viewer.  At the end of the discussion one presenter asked if Jesus was a hustler.  This was in the context of the name of the song that was announced.  The Tribunal accepted that the reasonable listener would probably understand hustler to mean prostitute.  Limitation on the freedom of expression discussed, i.e. in this case whether freedom of expression should be limited because of the advocacy of hatred based on religion. The Tribunal considered that although the presenters moved very close to the line where a limitation had to be placed on their freedom of speech, they did not go quite that far. The broadcast did not actually amount to the advocacy of hatred based on religion.  The light-hearted nature of the programme was taken into account and also the inexperience of the presenters who had been on air for barely a month.  Taking the context of the broadcast and all the relevant factors into consideration the Tribunal decided that there had not been a contravention of clause 16.3 of the Code of Conduct. The complaints were dismissed.