CASE NO: 04/2015 – HERBST AND DU PLESSIS VS SABC2 – CHILDREN

The Commission upheld complaints that two episodes of the 18:30 Sewende Laan programme contained scenes that were far too violent for a 13 PG-V warning. This finding resulted from two episodes that dealt with a violent attack on a café. Indeed, the Commission also questioned whether this kind of material should be broadcast at all [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:49+00:00 December 17th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 04/2015 – HERBST AND DU PLESSIS VS SABC2 – CHILDREN

CASE NO: 06/2013 – NDAMASE VS SABC2 – RIGHT OF REPLY

In 2009 a programme exposing alleged fraudulent activities of a Non-Profit Organisation (NPO) was broadcast. This programme was re-broadcast in 2012, though without checking the status of the organisation at the time. The situation had, however, changed, which would have necessitated a substantial amendment to the programme when re-broadcast. Complaint that Broadcasting Code was contravened [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:53+00:00 May 22nd, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 06/2013 – NDAMASE VS SABC2 – RIGHT OF REPLY

CASE NO: 13/2013 – UCDP AND MFUNDISI VS SABC2 – NEWS – NON COVERAGE

The President of the United Christian Democratic Party (“UCDP”), a minority party in Parliament, filed a complaint against SABC for not including him in their news broadcasts at 19:30 (isiZulu) and 20:30 (Sesotho) on the 15th February this year when a news conference was held with Party leaders.  The Tribunal held as follows: (1)   It [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:54+00:00 May 22nd, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 13/2013 – UCDP AND MFUNDISI VS SABC2 – NEWS – NON COVERAGE

CASE NO: 24/2012 – DE LANGE, SAUNDERS AND OTHERS VS SABC2 – HARMFUL TO CHILDREN

Complaints about the explicit portrayal of an attempted suicide during an episode of a popular soap opera broadcast during family time. Alleged that the threatening actions of the character to shoot himself were disturbing and harmful to children at a time when large numbers of children could be expected to be part of the audience. [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:12+00:00 April 7th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 24/2012 – DE LANGE, SAUNDERS AND OTHERS VS SABC2 – HARMFUL TO CHILDREN

CASE NO: 43/2012 – BOERS VS SABC2 – FAIRNESS

The organizer of a rodeo complained that he had not been afforded sufficient time on a panel discussion which took place on air. The original debate in which he took part lasted much longer and thereby his point of view was not covered fully when the discussion was ultimately broadcast. The Tribunal (by way of [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:16+00:00 April 1st, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 43/2012 – BOERS VS SABC2 – FAIRNESS

CASE NO: 03/2011 – KEBONEILWE VS SABC2 – HATE SPEECH

A broadcast by the Respondent wherein a programme presenter used the word “Makula” (Coolies) to refer to people of Indian descent.   The Tribunal held that the word “coolie”, given its historical apartheid context, amounted to a serious impairment of dignity by way of hate speech based on race. The tribunal also found that the word [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:23+00:00 March 13th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 03/2011 – KEBONEILWE VS SABC2 – HATE SPEECH

CASE NO: 04/2011 – TAYLOR AND PILLAY VS SABC2 – VIOLENCE

Two complaints were lodged with the BCCSA concerning a promo that showed scenes from real-life CCV footage of the sound of gunshots, a woman’s voice crying and “thieves” pointing their guns at victims during robberies in banks and shops. Though the violence portrayed was alleged to be essential to the development of a character and [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:23+00:00 March 13th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 04/2011 – TAYLOR AND PILLAY VS SABC2 – VIOLENCE

CASE NO: 23/2011 – DR. BOOL SMUTS (LANDMARK FOUNDATION) VS SABC 2 – RIGHT TO REPLY

The complaint concerns a FOKUS programme in which the SABC allegedly did not grant The Landmark Foundation Trust a fair and reasonable opportunity to reply to allegations made against it by farmers concerning the issue of compensation for livestock losses as a result of leopard killings.  The Complainant is of the view that the SABC [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:30+00:00 March 12th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 23/2011 – DR. BOOL SMUTS (LANDMARK FOUNDATION) VS SABC 2 – RIGHT TO REPLY

CASE NO: 32/2011 – LEGALWISE VS SABC2 – RIGHT TO REPLY

Legalwise, an insurer of legal costs, complained that the SABC, in its Speak Out programme had omitted to convey to viewers that it had no legal obligation to hand a cheque for damages won in a legal suit to a person whom it had insured against legal costs. It had merely done so on camera [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:32+00:00 March 12th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 32/2011 – LEGALWISE VS SABC2 – RIGHT TO REPLY

CASE NO: 36/2011 – KLEYNHANS AND ROSENBERG VS SABC2 – CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Complaint about a programme where the views of a pacifist Palestinian, Ali, were not countered, not upheld. The Tribunal agreed with the complainant that the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is a controversial one. Ali’s views are, however, his own views and do not elevate the debate, as presented in this programme, to the [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:47:33+00:00 March 12th, 2015|SABC 2|Comments Off on CASE NO: 36/2011 – KLEYNHANS AND ROSENBERG VS SABC2 – CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE