CASE NO: 15/2014 – REINHARDT’S PLACE & PRETORIUS VS MULTICHOICE KYKNET CHANNEL – DIGNITY

Complaints were received concerning a programme broadcast by the respondent broadcaster, which is currently running on a weekly basis. The programme, which is recorded with a live audience, amounts to a play in which a few characters, who are without a script, respond to instructions from a behind-the-scenes director. The television audience is privy to [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:40+00:00 December 17th, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 15/2014 – REINHARDT’S PLACE & PRETORIUS VS MULTICHOICE KYKNET CHANNEL – DIGNITY

CASE NO: 12/2014 – LE ROUX VS MULTICHOICE DISNEY XD CHANNEL – CHILDREN

This complaint is against the promotion (promo) of an episode in a series called "Woolfblood", described by the Respondent as a youth fantasy drama. Although short in duration, the promo contained scenes of growing human teeth and finger nails, suggesting an episode of a horror movie and requiring an age restriction of 13.  The Tribunal [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:40+00:00 December 17th, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 12/2014 – LE ROUX VS MULTICHOICE DISNEY XD CHANNEL – CHILDREN

CASE NO: 09/2014 – SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL HALAAL AUTHORITY VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL CII – COMMENT

A complaint was lodged with the Registrar. After protracted settlement proceedings the Chairperson called a meeting of the parties so that the BCCSA could establish whether the settlement addressed the matter satisfactorily.   Held: in the light of the circumstances sketched by representatives of the parties, the BCCSA accepted the withdrawal of the Complaint, which [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:44+00:00 December 17th, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 09/2014 – SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL HALAAL AUTHORITY VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL CII – COMMENT

CASE NO: 08/2014 – LE ROUX VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – EPG INCORRECT

A film with an age restriction of 16 was broadcast at 06:00. Although the age restriction was displayed on the screen, the broadcaster had, as a result of human error, not activated the electronic parental guide. Accordingly, the parental block-out mechanism had no effect on excluding the broadcast. Complaint upheld.  R20 000 fine imposed. [2014] JOL [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:45+00:00 December 17th, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 08/2014 – LE ROUX VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – EPG INCORRECT

CASE NO: 04/2013 – LAING VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – BESTIALITY

The Tribunal agreed with the Complainant that the scene shown was offensive and in extremely questionable taste. However, it did not regard this as an instance where the BCCSA should intervene. It is a well-known rule that the law – and thus the Broadcasting Code – should not concern itself with minor matters. The relevant [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:52+00:00 May 22nd, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 04/2013 – LAING VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – BESTIALITY

CASE NO: -09/2013 – WHITTAKER VS MULTICHOICE – NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL – CHILDREN

One of the MultiChoice channels screened a promotion for a programme about sex tourism in Thailand at 06:50.  They also screened a promotion for a programme about “deviant” sexual behaviour, which included images of people in bondage attire (a “dog muzzle mask”), striptease and highly sexualised positions. DSTV informed the channel that the promotional material [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:53+00:00 May 22nd, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: -09/2013 – WHITTAKER VS MULTICHOICE – NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL – CHILDREN

CASE NO: 24/2013 – O’ BRIEN, GEARD AND ALLWOOD VS MULTICHOICE – CHILDREN

Complaints about promotional material during a programme with popular appeal between 18:00 and 19:00 were received. That the material complained about amounted to a contravention of the Subscription Code was conceded by the Respondent. A managerial oversight was to blame for the error and immediate steps were taken to rectify it. The Tribunal agreed with [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:58+00:00 May 21st, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 24/2013 – O’ BRIEN, GEARD AND ALLWOOD VS MULTICHOICE – CHILDREN

CASE NO: 39/2013 – CILLIERS VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 122 – VIOLENCE

A complaint was lodged in connection with a video that was aired on a television programme. The Complainant regarded the video as being harmful in that a young man was injured after a vehicle was driven into him.  The Tribunal viewed the video. There was no clear indication that the driving of a vehicle into [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:02+00:00 May 21st, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 39/2013 – CILLIERS VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 122 – VIOLENCE

CASE NO: 42/2013 – COETZER & FOURIE VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – WARNINGS

An insert complained about was held to be problematic, though not sufficiently disturbing to warrant the intervention of the BCCSA in a re-broadcast that was likely to take place after the commencement of the subscription watershed. Complaint not upheld. Should the broadcaster wish to add a verbal warning to a re-broadcast of the insert (as [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:03+00:00 May 21st, 2015|Multichoice|Comments Off on CASE NO: 42/2013 – COETZER & FOURIE VS MULTICHOICE CHANNEL 144 – WARNINGS