Study Guide
Media Law (MDR 420)
Last revision: 2017
© Copyright reserved
Department of Public Law
1 General information
1.1 Lecturer and course leader
Ms Keneilwe Radebe
Office: Law Building 4-57
Telephone: (012) 420-3760
1.2 Departmental administrator
Mrs J Larkin
Office: Law Building 4-61
Telephone (012) 420-2415
1.3 Consultation hours
Monday 10:00-13:00
Tuesday 10:00-13:00
2. Lectures
Tuesday 07:45-09:20 IT 4-3
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This module focuses on the legal administration, regulation and constitutional protection of the Section 16 right to freedom of expression. The scope, objections, purpose and limitations of the Section 16 right are clearly highlighted through legislation, case law judgments and other legal sources discussed during the first and introductory lectures of the module. Throughout the module or semester various complementary rights or interests apparent during the exercise of the section 16 right are also focused on. These complementary rights or interests include and are not limited to; human dignity, privacy, intellectual property rights, state interests, judicial integrity matters, broad community interests’ and consumer rights. The module is divided into three main essential areas, namely:
-
the regulation and protection of the section 16 right to protect individual interest;
-
the regulation and protection of the section 16 right to protect public interest;
-
the regulation and protection of section right to protect democracy.
The above three areas are summarised as follows;
-
the regulation and protection of individual interest. This deals with sub- themes including defamation, privacy, intellectual property rights and social media conflicts;
-
the regulation and protection of public interest. This deals with sub- themes including the maintaining of integrity of the judicial system or legal proceedings, hate speech and the introduction of the hate crimes bill, various media regulatory bodies including the BCCSA in place to protect the public against distasteful and harmful material are also discussed and the protection of consumer rights which could be affected by the media are also discussed.
-
the regulation and protection of democracy. This deals with sub-themes including the role of and constitutional duties of the broadcasting corporation authority/s and growing concerns of censorship are also focused on, the protection of confidential media sources is also discussed.
READING
The course relies on three main texts, all of which are made available to students electronically through class notes posted on click-up:
-
D Milo and P Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis (Textbook)
-
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis (Textbook)
-
Case law highlighted throughout various course themes
ASSESSMENT
Your semester mark will be based on three assessment opportunities. The mark will be calculated as follows:
Closed book test 1: 40%
Closed book test 2: 40 %
Assignments: 20%
Assessment dates and times will be announced in class and on click-up
CALCULATION OF FINAL MARK
Your final mark will made up of your semester mark (50%) and your examination mark (50%). The usual faculty policy applies with regards to the fact that an entrance mark of 40% is required in order to be allowed to write the exam.
COURSE THEMES
-
THEME 1: Introductory theme:
1.1 consists of a discussion of the section 16 constitutional right to freedom of expression
1.2 limitations of the section 16 right to freedom of expression;
-
THEME 2: Defamation and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression ( incl. social media)
-
THEME 3: Privacy and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (incl. social media)
-
THEME 4: The protection of business interest, intellectual property, personality rights and the exercise of freedom of expression;
4.1 employment disputes;
4.2 The protection of intellectual property- trademarks and copyrights (incl. social media)
4.3 The protection of personality rights, cyber-bullying (incl. social media)
-
THEME 5: 5.1 Publicity of judicial trials
5.2 Contempt of court
6.2 Criminal defamation
6.3 The introduction of Hate Crimes Bill,
6.4 Protection of state information Bill
6.5 Protection of Personal information Act,2013
-
THEME 7: Media regulatory bodies
-
THEME 8: Freedom of expression and democracy
8.1 The role and constitutional duties of the SABC
8.2 Censorship, Access to information
8.3 The protection of journalistic sources
8.4 Parliament and the right to freedom of expression
8.5 Protests and the right to freedom of expression
THEME 1: The constitutional right to freedom of expression and limitations of the right to freedom of expression
Guiding questions
-
What is the purpose of section 16 (1) of the Constitution?
-
What does section 16 (1) of the Constitution protect?
-
Explain and discuss the content of 16 (1) of the Constitution
-
What is freedom of expression per section 16 (1) of the Constitution?
-
What are the other forms of legislation or conventions (international/national) that promote and protect the right to freedom of expression?
-
Does section 16 (1) effectively protect the right to freedom of expression?
-
What are the rationales for the protection of freedom of expression?
-
Briefly explain the sub-categories contained in section 16 (1) of the Constitution
-
What is the purpose of section 16 (2) of the Constitution?
-
Discuss the 36-limitation analysis
-
Discuss the various forms of exclusions from the constitutional protection of freedom of expression
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
WJ Van Vollenhoven ‘The right to freedom of expression: the mother of our democracy’ (2015) 18 Potchefstroom Law Journal 2299
Case and Another v Minister of Safety and Security 1996 (5) BCLR 608 (CC)
Johncom Media Investments Ltd v M 2009 BCLR 751
Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (8) BCLR 771 (CC) (14 June 2002)
SA National Defence Force Union v Minister of Defence 1999 (6) BCLR 615 (CC) (26 May 1999)
The Citizen v McBride 2011 (8) BCLR 816 (CC) ( 8 April 2011)
Essay question
The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) envisages enacting a new law permitting the speaker to authorise the jamming of sound devices in the council in instances relating to the uttering of “unparliamentary speech”, “undue criticism of the South African president” and the uttering of words that could spark or incite the commission of hate crimes whilst in parliament. The NCOP is of the view that jamming such devices during the abovementioned instances will help in prevention of the promotion of “reckless” and “disrespectful behaviour” in the parliament often taking place to undermine the President of the Republic and the South African ruling party. You are thus approached by your principal who is a Constitutional Court judge who requests you to conduct appropriate research and later compile a memorandum addressing the question whether the right to freedom of expression will be limited by such a law. In the event that you find that indeed freedom of expression will be limited, you should further advise your principal on whether the limitation will be justifiable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution.
THEME 2: Defamation
Guiding questions
-
What are the elements of defamation?
-
Discuss the defences that can be raised in a defamation claim
-
Who can sue for defamation?
-
What is criminal defamation?
-
What are the possible remedies in a defamation claim?
-
How have South African courts dealt with defamation taking place in cases involving social media
-
Is there a distinction between instances of defamation involving a public figure and defamation involving a private citizen?
-
Is the way defamation claims against the media are dealt with sufficient in preventing a “chilling effect” on press and media freedom?
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Dutch Reformed Church v Rayan Soknunan 2012 (6) 201 GSJ
Hechter v Benade (20595/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1018 ( 5 December 2016)
Heroldt v Willis 2013 (2) 530 (GSJ)
Isparta v Richter 2013 (6) SA 529
Independent Newspaper v Sulliman [2004] 3 All 137 (SCA) (28 May 2004)
Lady Agaism Pereira v Johnnic Publishing Eastern Cape Pty (Ltd) 2003 (2) All SA 416 (SE)
Le Roux v Dey 2011 (6) BCLR 577 (CC)
Malema v Rampedi 2011 (5) SA 631 (GSJ) ( 23 July 2011)
Modiri v Minister of Safety and Security 2012 1 All SA 154 (SCA) (28 September 2011)
National Media v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)
RM V RB 2015 (1) SA 270 KZP
Sayed v Editor, Cape Times [2003] 4 All SA 86 (C)
Sokhulu v New Afrika Publications 2002 1 All SA 255
Times Media Ltd v Nisselow [2005] 1 All SA 567 (SCA)
The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd v Mc Bride 2011 (8) BCLR 816 (CC)
Tsedu v Lekota [2009] 3 All SA 46 (SCA)
Essay question
Dr Anglioti “Dr A” expressed on his face book page that some incidents of medical negligence can often be foreseen. Dr A further made an example of his colleague’s misfortune by stating as follows: “ Like in my dear colleague’s case, it was very obvious that she had not exercised the required level of medical care when she prescribed a higher dosage of sedatives and pain-killers to an under-age boy” which led to the young boy suffering from various mental disorders. Dr Signorelli the “mentioned colleague” “Dr S”, who happens to be your client, informs you that her head of department immediately after being aware of the “face book post” notified her that such negative publicity especially on a social media network can ruin their hospital’s reputation. Dr S requires your legal advice on whether she can succeed with a defamation claim against Dr A. You are thus required to draft a legal opinion wherein you advise your client on the presence of the required elements of defamation and the likely court outcome or ruling. Your legal opinion should make reference to applicable case law and the relevance of such case law and legal principles contained therein must be fully discussed and incorporated in your legal opinion.
THEME 3: Privacy
Guiding questions
-
When can one’s right to privacy be said to be infringed?
-
Mention examples of actions constituting the violation of an individual’s right to privacy by the media
-
What is required for one to have a legitimate expectation of privacy?
-
What are the elements of the delict of invasion of privacy?
-
Mention examples of situations which could arguably be said to constitute “the legitimate expectation” of ones right to privacy
-
What is the legal position relating to private facts obtained by unlawful means?
-
Discuss the grounds of justification to an action for invasion of privacy
-
Is there a distinction between the privacy violation of politicians/ other public figures versus less famous citizens?
-
When can public figures “possibly” successfully institute legal proceedings for the publication of their private facts in the media?
-
What are the possible remedies for the violation of one’s right to privacy?
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Bernstein v Bester 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC)
Financial Mail (Pty) Limited v Sage Holdings 1993 (2) All SA 109 (A)
H v W 2013 (2) SA 530 (GSJ)
Johncom Media Investment v M 2009 (8) BCLR 751 (CC)
Malema v Rampedi 2011 (5) SA 631 (GSJ)
MEC for Health Mpumalanga v MNET 2002 (6) SA 714 (T)
National Media v Jooste 1996 (2) All SA 510 (A)
NM v Smith 2007 (7) BCLR 751 (CC)
SAA v BDFM Publishers 2016 1 All SA 860 (GJ)
Tshabalala Msimang v Makhanya 2008 (3) BCLR 338 (W)
Essay question
Nonkuleko Mbeku who is an SRC member of the University of Zululand was asked to assist with the administrative tasks of the department of Philosopy. This meant that she could use the administrator’s office for the day in order to assist with the necessary tasks. Since, it had been a very slow day, Nonkululeko decided to access documents titled “HOD meeting minutes” from the administrator’s desktop. These documents contained valuable information regarding the University’s fee crisis and are thus of a highly confidential nature. Nonkululeko thus saw the opportunity to include details and extracts of these documents in the University’s weekly newspaper as part of her way of sparking a debate on the University’s transformation “policies”. This newspaper piece was later discovered by the University’s Vice Principal who decides to recommend a disciplinary hearing wherein the possible disciplinary measures for Nonkululeko’s alleged invasion into the University’s confidential documents are to be discussed. Advise the University’s disciplinary committee by means of legal memo on their rights with regard to the unauthorised use of the University’s confidential information.
THEME 4: Intellectual property, personality rights, business interests
Guiding questions
-
Discuss the relevance of section 12 of the Copyright Act with regard to the right to freedom of expression
-
Which media works are eligible for copyright protection in terms of section 2 of the Copyright Act?
-
How can an infringement of a copyright take place in the media?
-
Discuss section 12 (Copyright Act) exemptions of certain actions that would constitute an infringement of copyright
-
Discuss the relevance of section 21 (1) of the Copyright Act with regard to copyright ownership and authorship
-
What constitutes a personality right? How can such right be infringed by/ in the media?
-
How can a trademark infringement take place in the media?
-
Discuss relevant case law pertaining to the dismissal of employees involved in “employer” defamation on social media networks
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Ashdown v Telegraph Group Limited 2001 4 All ER 666
Beurain v Martin (2014) 35 ILJ 2443 (LC) 16 April 2014
Cele v Avusa Media 2013 2 All SA 412 (GSJ)
Cell C v Prokas (40921/2014) (2014) ZAGPJHC 430
Flocutt (Pty) Ltd v Eisenberg (3592/2016)[2016] ZAFSHC 200 ( 20 October 2016)
Fraser – Woodward Ltd v BBC & Brighter Pictures Ltd 2005 EWHC 472 (Ch)
Fredick v Krisray v Jo Barkett Fashions [2012] 1 BALR 28 CCMA
Hubbard v Vosper 1972 (1) All ER 1023
Julia Basetsana Khumalo v Cycle Lab (Pty) Ltd 2011 ZAGPJHC 56 ( 17 June 2011)
Laugh if off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International 2005 (8) BCLR 743 (CC)
Media Workers Association of South Africa obo Mvemve v Kathorus Community Radio 2010 31 ILJ 2217 (CCMA)
O Keeffe v Argus Printing & Publishing Co Ltd 1954 3 All SA 159 (C)
R v Innes 1925 CPD 161
SABC v Via Vollenhoven 2016 4 All SA 623 (GJ) ( 2 September 2016)
Sedick v Krisray (Pty) Ltd [2011] 8 BALR 879 (CCMA)
Time v Warner Entertainment CO LP v Channel 4 Television Corp Plc 1994 EMLR 1
Verimark v BMW 2007 (6) SA 263 (SCA)
Essay question
Dr Gloria Ntengu who is a human rights lecturer at the University of Phalaborwa Whilst interviewed on 702 Radio expressed her dissatisfaction towards alleged “racist approaches” followed by the University with regard to the fees must fall protests. Dr Ntengu uttered the following words: “the minute the University acknowledges that not all of us have white privilege then the issue of exorbitant fees will be appropriately addressed”. This did not obviously sit well with her employer, who is currently in the process of instituting legal action against Dr Ntengu. Advice Dr Ntengu by means of an e-mail on the prospects and the possibilities of her being dismissed from the institution as a result of her comments made on radio. Your answer should make reference to applicable legal authority.
THEME 5: Judicial publicity and contempt of court
Guiding questions
-
Explain the right to open justice with regard to media access and publication of court trial proceedings;
-
Does the media have a legally recognised right to have access to and to report court proceedings?
-
Discuss exceptions to the general rule of open courts/justice;
-
List legally recognised instances where the media may be restricted of the access and reporting of court proceedings
-
Discuss the relevance of the Multichoice v Pistorius judgment with regard to media participation in court trials and the right to open justice
-
Discuss cases highlighting possible criterion used by courts before permitting media access and publication of court trials
-
When can, the media be guilty of contempt of court? Discuss relevant cases to clearly substantiate your answer
-
What are the various forms of contempt of court which the media be held liable for? Discuss relevant cases in elaborating on the various forms of contempt
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Els v Weideman 2011 2 All SA 246 (SCA)
E-tv v Judicial Service Commission 2010 (1) SA 537 (GSJ)
Johncom Media Investments Ltd v M 2009 (8) BCLR 751 (CC)
Media 24 Limited v National Prosecuting Authority in re S v Mahlangu 2011 (2) SACR 321 (GNP)
Midi Television v Director of Public Prosecutions 2007 (9) BCLR 958 (SCA)
Multichoice v Nationa Director of Public Prosecutions 2014 (1) SACR 589 (GP) (25 February 2014)
Prinsloo v Bramley Children’s Home 2005 (2) SACR 2 (T)
SABC v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2007 (2) BCLR 167 (CC)
S v Baleka 1986 4 All SA 428 (T)
S v Geiges 2007 (2) SACR 507 (T)
S v Kotze [2013] ZAGPPHC ( 15 July 2013)
S v Mamabolo 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC)
S v Manqina 1994 (2) SACR 692 (2)
S v Zululand 1985 1 All SA 37 (N)
Essay question
Discuss the below scenario/s with regard to the court orders made to protect certain persons during. Your answer should make reference to applicable legal authority and should further motivate the advantages and disadvantages of such orders/decisions.
-
“The name and image of a man accused of luring two children away from a school holiday care centre and sexually assaulting them have been suppressed by a Perth magistrate. After hearing argument from the prosecutor, the defence lawyer and a lawyer representing the media, Magistrate Joe Cicchini suppressed the publication of the man's name, his image and anything that might lead to him being identified”.
-
“A MAN accused of raping children as young as six years old has had his identity protected for fear of embarrassment to his family. The Prestons man, 61, appeared at Campbell town Court yesterday on 18 charges, including aggravated sexual assault against a child under 10 and possession of child abuse material. Yesterday in court, the Director of Public Prosecutions applied to have the suppression order on the man’s identity lifted but was denied by Magistrate Robert Rabbidge, due to a “concern about the embarrassment and risk of harm to the family, given the way people view these offences”. The order was made so as not to prejudice the on going investigation into the matter”.
-
“A 12-year-old boy charged with raping a 3-year-old girl has been released from detention, allowing him to attend Lamberton Middle School. Up until the point that a child pleads guilty or is convicted of a crime, Friend said, "no information is provided to the school district about that child or those charges."
-
“what happens when a child accused attains majority during criminal proceedings or where a teenager is convicted turns 18 and there is a pending appeal? Be a man!” Judge President Frans Kgomo reportedly told the near-18 year old as the Judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison for each of the three murder counts (for the murder of Deon Steenkamp, his wife Chantel Steenkamp and their 14-year-old daughter Marthella); 12 years for raping Marthella Steenkamp; and four years for defeating the ends of justice. The Griekwastad murderer is said to be appealing his sentence – but may he be identified until after the appeal is finalised”?
THEME 6: Hate speech, criminal defamation, Hate crimes Bill, State Info Bill, Personal Info Bill
Guiding questions
-
Discuss the hate speech provision found in the South African Constitution
-
What is hate speech?
-
Discuss and apply the criterion that must be met for a statement to qualify as hate speech
-
Discuss applicable laws and codes prohibiting hate speech
-
Discuss possible remedies for hate speech
-
Discuss and define criminal defamation and its effect on freedom of expression with reference to applicable case law
-
Discuss the Hate Crime Bill and its possible implications on the media and freedom of expression
-
Discuss the State Info Bill and its possible implications on the media and freedom of expression
-
Discuss the Personal Info Act,2014 and its possible implications on the media and freedom of expression
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Afriforum v Malema 2011 (12) BCLR 1289 (Eqc) ( 12 September 2011)
Afriforum v Pienaar (4357/16) [2016] ZAWCHC 175 (8 July 2016)
ANC v Sparrow (01/16) [2016] ZAEQC 1 (10 June 2016)
Freedom Front v South African Human Rights Commission 2003 (11) BCLR 1283 (SAHRC)
Hoho v S 2009 1 All SA 103 (SCA)
Islamic Unity Convenient v Independent Broadcasting Authority 2002 (5) BCLR 433 (CC)
Motsepe v S 2015 (5) SA 126 (GP) (5 November 2014)
Muller v Heart 104.9 FM case number 12/2011 (BCCSA)
Psychological Society of South Africa v Qwelane (CCT226/16) [2016] ZACC 48 (14 December 2016)
R v Keegstra 1990 3 SC 697
Sonke Gender Justice Network v Malema 2010 (7) BCLR 729 (Eqc)
Essay question
Advise your client on whether the below statements constitute hate speech, your answers should make reference to applicable legal authority:
-
“What is the understanding of ordinary ANC supporters? They understand that if one gets rid of the white man, all problems are solved. Get rid of the cockroaches and all problems go away”.
-
“Gay rights? Under God’s Law the only “rights” gays have is the right to die”
-
Mohammed’s sexual strength is equal to 30 men.
-
“Have you ever seen an ugly woman in a blue dress dancing like a monkey because she is looking for votes?”
-
“This over-concentration of coloured people in the Western Cape is not working for them …they are in over-supply where they are.”
-
“I want to cleanse this country of all white people. we must act as Hitler did to the Jews. I don’t believe any more that the is a large number of not so racist whit people .I’m starting to be sceptical even of those within our Movement the ANC. I will from today unfriend all white people I have as friends from today u must be put under the same blanket as any other racist white because secretly u all are a bunch of racist fuck heads. as we have already seen [all sic],”
-
I only debate with serious political youth formations. Not a group of the racist Helen Zille’s garden boys…”
THEME 7: Media regulatory bodies
Guiding questions
-
Discuss the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa’s (BCCSA) jurisdiction
-
Discuss the BCCSA’s complaints procedure
-
Discuss the BCCSA’s code of conduct
-
Explain the term ‘watershed period’ and its implications on free to air code and subscription service broadcasters
-
Discuss the Complaints and Compliance Committee’s jurisdiction (CCC)
-
Discuss the CCC’s complaints procedure
-
Is there a difference between ICASA (Independent Commissions Authority) and CCC’S role and duties?
-
Discuss the Press Council’s jurisdiction
-
Discuss the Press Council’s complaints procedure
-
Discuss the Press Council’s code of conduct
-
Discuss the role and functions the Films and Publications Board
-
Discuss the Films and Publications Board classification procedure of publications and its legal effect on freedom of expression
-
Briefly discuss the Films and Publication Boards classification criteria
-
Discuss the Advertising and Standards Authority’s jurisdiction and advertising code with reference to recent and applicable case law
-
Discuss possible sanctions that may be imposed by the Advertising and Standards Authority with reference to applicable recent case law
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Fitch v SABC 3 case no 01/2009 (BCCSA)
Freedom of Expression Institute v Chair, Complaints and Compliance Committee 2011 JOL 26704 (GSJ)
Herbex v Advertising Standards Authority 2016 (5) SA 557 (GJ) (5 May 2016)
Justice Alliance v Mncube 2015 (4) BCLR 402 (WCC)
Majora v SABC case no 10/200 (BCCSA)
Marcon v MNET 53/2012 (BCCSA)
Medical Nutritional Institute v Advertising Standards Authority (15/30142) [2015] ZAGPJHC 317 (18 September 2016)
Essay question
Discuss with reference to legal authority the likely outcome in the following matters brought before the BCCSA:
-
“I am concerned of the message that ENCA’s interpreter interpreted the message of 1 of the people in an insert where the government handed over boats to the people of a kzn community. The man in the insert said the children in the school get thirsty, but, what ENCA wrote was that ‘there is no water’. I feel it is misleading and is contervaying the wrong message to viewers of what happens in that area of KZN”.
-
The Registrar received a complaint where the word “msunu” was included in a pre-recorded broadcast by the respondent. ‘The word refers to female genitalia in a vulgar and offensive manner’. This complaint was made against E-tv for not having censored the grossly offensive word “msunu” uttered by Tats Nkozo, a comedian in the programme ‘ The Big Debate: Local Democracy’ which was broadcast at 10h00 on Sunday the 31st of July 2016.
THEME 8: Freedom of expression and democracy
Guiding questions
-
Discuss the SABC’s duties and role as a public broadcaster and its possible role to censorship with reference to recent applicable case law and applicable legislation
-
Discuss the meaning of censorship and its possible implications on the right to freedom of expression
-
Which information may be censored? Your answer must refer to applicable case law
-
Discuss the term state censorship, the information the state can censor and its implications on the right to access information
-
Discuss how information can be censored? Your answer must refer to applicable case law
-
Discuss the importance of protecting journalistic sources and applicable legal instruments used to protect such sources
-
Discuss recent parliamentary events with reference to applicable case law affecting the right to freedom of expression
-
Discuss the importance of protesting and the effect it has on the right to freedom of expression and democracy, your answer should refer to applicable case law and the restrictions that have been placed on the right to protest
Core reading
Milo & Stein (2013) A Practical Guide to Media Law: Lexis Nexis
Y Burns (2009) Communications Law (2nd edition) Lexis Nexis
Democratic Alliance v Independent Communications Authority (0346/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 238 (9 September 2016)
Freedom of Expression Institute v Chair, Complaints and Compliance Committee (2009/51933) [2011] ZAGPHC 2 (24 January 2011)
Malema v Chairman of National Council of Provinces (12189/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 39 2015 (4) SA 145 (WCC) (15 April 2015)
Mvoko v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd (25604/2016) ZAGPJHC 269 ( 12 August 2016)
Primedia Broadcasting v Speaker of the NA 2015 (7) BCLR 835 (WCC) (28 May 2015)
Print Media South Africa v Minister of Home Affairs 2012 (12) BCLR 1346 (CC)
Rhodes University v Student Representative Council of Rhodes (1937/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 141 (1 December 2016)
Solidarity v South African Broadcasting Authority Corporation 2016 (6) SA 73 (LC)
Essay question
Discuss and contrast the below types of censorship with reference to applicable legal authority:
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
