CASE NO: 02/2011 – R BOOTHROYD ON BEHALF OF GUN OWNERS SOUTH AFRICA VS e.tv – NEWS

The Gun Owners of South Africa complained that a news item that was broadcast by the Respondent was not truthful or accurate, that there was a departure from the facts by material omission and that what was not reasonably true was presented as fact (clause 34.1, 34.2 and 34.3).  In the news item there were visuals showing the police busy lifting fire arms into a furnace to destroy same and there was also a reporter who mentioned that most of the fire arms had been handed in voluntarily and that the handing in of fire arms was part of a voluntary campaign to reduce the number of fire arms.  The Complainant took exception to these statements, averring that the handing in of fire arms could not have been voluntary because of threats by the Minister of Safety and Security and officials of his Department that people who did not comply with this law could be jailed for up to 15 years. The Complainant called this a campaign of propaganda and intimidation.  The Tribunal found that the handing in of fire arms was done in terms of the Fire Arms Control Act, 2000, that compulsion is a characteristic of all legislation, that owners of fire arms are limited to one weapon per person (with certain exceptions) and that such owners who had fire arms that could not be licensed had to make a conscious decision to either sell such weapons (to licence holders) or hand them over to the police.  In this context one could say that the fire arms were handed in voluntarily.  As to the complaint that the Respondent failed to mention that owners of fire arms who handed in such fire arms were entitled to compensation in terms of  the Act, the Tribunal found that the  news item was about an event and not about a discussion of the Act, and that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the editorial prerogative of the broadcaster. The Tribunal found no contravention of the Code of Conduct and the complaint was not upheld.