By Sipho Tshabalala
David Icke, a staunch advocate for absolute freedom of speech, argues that true freedom means the ability to express any opinion, no matter how controversial. In South Africa, this principle is increasingly under threat as the space for open discourse narrows. Opinions that challenge the status quo are often met with censorship, raising concerns about the state of democracy and free expression in the country. The recent actions of the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) exemplify this troubling trend.
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democratic society, a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without fear of retribution. Yet, in South Africa, this essential liberty is increasingly under threat, not by an external force, but by the very institutions designed to protect it. The recent actions of the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) have raised serious concerns about the erosion of media freedom and the narrowing of the space for open and honest discourse in our country.
David Icke, a vocal advocate for unrestrained free speech, once asserted that “freedom of speech is simply the freedom to speak”. This statement captures a vital truth: when we begin to place limits on what can be said, we are not just regulating speech; we are undermining freedom itself. The PCSA’s growing role as the arbiter of acceptable commentary represents a dangerous shift towards censorship, where the boundaries of public debate are increasingly drawn by a select few, rather than by the public at large.
The principle of freedom of speech is enshrined in the very rules of the Press Council. According to the PCSA’s guidelines, the media is entitled to comment upon or criticize any actions or events of public interest. This right is protected even if the commentary is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated, or prejudiced, as long as it is made without malice, is based on facts that are either true or reasonably believed to be true, and is clearly presented as opinion. This broad protection is crucial in ensuring that the media can serve its role as a watchdog, holding power to account and fostering a vibrant public debate.
However, recent events suggest that the PCSA may be stepping beyond its mandate, transforming from a protector of free speech into a censor of it. The directive issued by the PCSA to The Sunday Independent and IOL to retract an opinion piece and apologize to journalist Karyn Maughan is a case in point. While the specifics of the article can be debated, the broader issue is the precedent this sets: that the Press Council can dictate what opinions are permissible in the public domain. This not only undermines the editorial independence of media outlets but also chills the willingness of journalists and commentators to engage in robust debate on contentious issues.
The Press Code of Ethics for South African media, as outlined in the Preamble and related sections, clearly supports the right of media outlets to publish content that includes critical and provocative commentary, provided it adheres to certain standards. The Sunday Independent and IOL, by publishing Edmond Phiri’s opinion piece, operated within their rights under this Code. Phiri's article, despite its contentious nature, falls under the protection of Section 7 of the Code, which allows for extreme, unjust, or exaggerated comments on matters of public interest, as long as they are presented as opinion and without malice. The media’s adherence to these guidelines supports their stance against the Press Council of South Africa’s directive for retraction and apology, emphasizing that such content is legitimate under the Code’s provisions.
The real danger lies in the broader implications of such actions. If the PCSA, an entity ostensibly established to safeguard press freedom, begins to act as a gatekeeper of acceptable speech, it risks stifling the very diversity of thought and opinion that a democratic society relies upon. This creeping censorship does not just silence dissenting voices; it narrows the range of perspectives available to the public, leading to a more homogenized and controlled narrative.
David Icke’s observations on the nature of censorship resonate deeply in this context. He warns that when authorities are given the power to decide what can and cannot be said, they inevitably use that power to suppress dissent and protect the status quo. This is not a hypothetical danger; it is a reality that has played out in authoritarian regimes throughout history, where freedom of speech was systematically curtailed under the guise of maintaining order or protecting public interest. The parallels with the PCSA’s recent actions are unsettling.
Moreover, the rise of political correctness, as Icke notes, has become a tool for those in power to manipulate public discourse by limiting the range of acceptable opinions. This modern form of censorship is particularly insidious because it often operates under the banner of protecting individuals or communities from harm. Yet, in practice, it often serves to shield the powerful from criticism and to marginalize those who challenge the dominant narrative.
The role of the media in a democracy is not just to report the news but to provoke thought, challenge assumptions, and spark debate. When the Press Council steps in to silence certain opinions, it undermines this critical function. It is not the job of the PCSA to protect the public from controversial or uncomfortable ideas; rather, it is to ensure that all voices have the opportunity to be heard, so that the public can make up its own mind.
The recent actions of the Press Council of South Africa represent a troubling shift towards censorship and a narrowing of the space for free speech. If we are to preserve the democratic principles upon which our society is built, we must resist this encroachment on media freedom. Freedom of speech is not just the right to speak; it is the right to be heard, to challenge, and to dissent. Without it, our democracy is weakened, and the power of the people is diminished. It is imperative that the PCSA remembers its true role: to protect, not to police, the free flow of ideas and opinions that are the lifeblood of any free society.
The Sunday Independent and IOL should not be compelled to apologize to Karyn Maughan, as their publication of Edmond Phiri’s opinion piece was a legitimate exercise of free speech and critical journalism.
Opinion
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer and analyst.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.