A complaint was lodged regarding alleged abusive, vulgar and demeaning language (words such as 
bitch and whore) used against a woman, and furthermore at a time when children could be exposed to it in a broadcast by the Respondent. Respondent argued that the context of discussion was a scientific study which found that swearing releases stress and that this was demonstrated on air by the presenter. Tribunal held that this was not a time when a large number of children would be likely to have been part of the audience and that the contravention did not fall within this category.Tribunal also held that since the ex-girlfriend did not lodge a complaint based on impairment of her dignity, the matter could not be decided by the Tribunal because the complainant did not have locus standi to lodge such a complaint; only the girlfriend could do so. Further held that it would have been acceptable for the presenter to discuss the topic in general, but that the personal remarks about, and insults directed at the mother of his child, were unacceptable in law. Held that his words and the tone in enunciating them were scornful, derisive and denigrating and went well beyond the contemporary standard of tolerance in South Africa. Tribunal held that the Broadcaster transgressed Clause 4(1) of the Broadcasting Code when the presenter conveyed the message that it is acceptable to use abusive language against women. The broadcast amounted to the advocating of violence or, at least, unlawful conduct in the form of crimen iniuria against women. Complaint upheld. Complainant and Broadcaster were granted opportunity to file argument on sanction. Only Broadcaster responded and pleaded that a reprimand would suffice as there was no intention to malice or hatred. Tribunal concluded that the contravention was a serious one since equality and dignity are Constitutionally crucial and there was no doubt that the references were calculated to further the deplorable, alternatively unlawful conduct. The argument that the matter is not sufficiently serious to warrant a fine because the presenter did not act with malice is unfounded. Even if malice was not present, a reasonable listener would have regarded the remarks as so seriously in disregard of the said rights that a broadcaster cannot escape a heavy sanction by merely arguing absence of malice. Intention to promote is sufficient, whether it is motivated by malice or not. The Broadcaster is responsible for the conduct of its presenters and the broadcast took place in flagrant disregard of the Broadcasting Code. A fine of R15 000 was imposed.
CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT case-no-28-2011