supplying labour services to Independent Newspapers and Johnnic Communications, and is accused in the pamphlet of engaging in exploitative employment practices. • ALERT Date: July 19, 2007 Persons: Mail & Guardian, Media 24 Violation: Censored On July 19 2007, a gag order was granted against the Mail & Guardian (M&G), Media 24 “or any other person”. Pretoria High Court Judge Lettie Molopa issued the order preventing the Mail & Guardian et al from publishing the details of an explosive report into alleged corruption, abuse of power and intimidation at the SABC. UPDATE: Since May 2005, six interdict applications have been launched in the Johannesburg High Court against the M&G. Though a number of applications were ultimately rejected, two interim interdicts were initially granted. • ALERT Date: May 31, 2007 Persons: Media in South Africa Violation: Legislation (threatening legislation) The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has reinserted the exemptions for the media into the controversial Film and Publications Amendment Bill. However, there are still serious issues in the Bill, that impact negatively on freedom of expression beyond the media. The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), in a public statement, expressed the hope that these problems will be attended to during debates in the National Council of Provinces. In terms of the Bill, any person (other than newspaper publishers) who intends to distribute a publication that contains visual presentations, descriptions or representations of sexual conduct, propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence or hate speech, will have to submit the publication for classification. This means that non-media creators of publications, such as artists, writers and academics, will be subject to the same sort of pre-publication censorship that the media fought so hard to avoid. The FXI noted that it is entirely inappropriate for a government institution like the Film and Publications Board to be the arbiter of what can and cannot be read or viewed. Even if the Board decides to grant such publications an exemption on literary or artistic grounds, it is dangerous to hand the power to decide whether to allow publications or not over to the government, as it opens the door to government censorship of controversial speech. In retaining this classification requirement for publications, the Portfolio Committee has failed to address the crucial distinction between films and publications recognized in the Film and Publications Act of 1996. In terms of the Act, films are subject to tighter regulation than publications, as the former are considered to be more pervasive than the latter. Works of art are considered to be publications, and were therefore subject to lighter regulation. Publications were classified only if someone complained about them. The Bill changes this arrangement. Now publishers will be required to submit potentially controversial material before distribution, and will be guilty of a criminal offence if they do not. This is untenable. It will lead to great uncertainty amongst publishers and artists about whether they are required to submit their work or not, which may well lead to self-censorship. Cutting edge creative work cannot thrive in such a climate. The Bill also treats publications containing descriptions of sexual conduct as suspect, requiring them to be submitted for classification. This requirement smacks of the morality police; the government should not be in the business of controlling the sexual expression of its citizens. So This Is Democracy? 2007 -82- Media Institute of Southern Africa