On the 20th March the Registrar received a complaint that the word “I am the motherf… princess” 
were included in a song broadcast by the Respondent. The time of broadcast was 17:35 on a Saturday afternoon. The Tribunal held that although the word “motherf…” is not that clear in the song, which has a quick pace, it is most definitely part of the song. In fact, it was not disputed by the Respondent that the word does form part of the song. The Respondent, however, denied that it was broadcast. The best evidence available to the Tribunal now clearly contradicts the Respondent. At 17:35 a large number of children is in the audience of radio throughout South Africa. Many children, who are privileged to have access to television, would at that time of the day have been enjoying children’s television programming. Nevertheless, the number of children listening to radio at that time of the day must be substantial. Although the word “fuck” has gone through many stages in its evolution and has become tolerable or even acceptable in its secondary forms to many grown-ups (and even teenagers) in their daily language, the Tribunal believes that the word, in its primary and any of its secondary meanings, is not acceptable for radio before the watershed: it clearly falls within clause 27 of the Code which prohibits the use of grossly offensive language before the watershed. Even after the watershed its use would be considered with great caution from a gender and hate speech perspective. The word “motherf*cking”, for obvious reasons, is even more problematic. The Tribunal had no doubt that at the time of the broadcast that a large number of children was likely to have been present in the audience. Judged in context, the word was used as a means of emphasis and not in its primary form. Most children under the age of 10 are, however, unlikely to even know that the word has a primary meaning. But that is not necessarily the test. The question is whether the word falls in the category of “grossly offensive language” in terms of clause 27. The clause provides as follows:
No excessively and grossly offensive language should be used before the watershed period on television or at times when large numbers of children are likely to be part of the audience on television or radio. Its use during the periods referred to above should, where practicable, be approved in advance by the licensee’s most senior programme executive or the designated alternate.
The Tribunal has to exercise a value judgment as to whether the words are grossly offensive in the light of Constitutional morality. Given the special protection of women in terms of section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the words “motherf*cking princess” have demeaning implications beyond mere crudity or offensiveness. This is not the kind of language which should be broadcast to children. There might be debate as to whether this kind of language is not, in any case, part of the vocabulary of teenagers. Even if accepted to be the case, the Tribunal had no doubt that pre-teenagers and teenagers should not be subjected to this kind of language on the airwaves – “children” being defined as persons under 16 in the BCCSA Code. The word implies a message of utter disrespect to mothers and is not merely offensive but grossly so. The complaint was upheld.
As to sanction the following was held: The Tribunal regarded this contravention of the Code as serious. The protection of gender rights, in this case of women who are mothers, is an important aspect of the Constitution of the RSA. The rights of children are also of special importance. A contravention of this nature justifies more than a mere reprimand or even an apology. In mitigation the Tribunal has considered the argument of the Respondent in regard to the steps they have taken to rectify as well as the apology. The Tribunal has decided to impose a fine of R10 000.