SECTOR 1 1.9 The state does not seek to block or filter Internet content unless in accordance with laws that provide for restrictions that serve a legitimate interest and are necessary in a democratic society, and which are applied by independent courts The state does not seek to block or filter internet content directly. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 created the enabling environment for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take down content on websites, but panellists were critical of the fact that there was no public reporting or transparency in this regard. ‘This puts the reporting obligation on hundreds of ISPs and it is just not practical. There is a huge difference between facing the consequences of what you say on social media, for example, and paying fines and actually being stopped directly. There may not be a law in place that relates to filtering of content by the state, but the spirit of the law impacts on how people feel free. As a result, there is a considerable amount of self-censorship. The SABC journalists are a good example of this.’ Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: ✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ 4.6 (2013: 5.0; 2010: n/a; 2008: n/a; 2006: n/a) 1.10 Civil society in general and media lobby groups actively advance the cause of media freedom Panellists felt that media lobby groups such as the Right2Know (access to information) campaign, the Save our SABC (SOS) public broadcasting coalition and Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) do actively advance the cause of media freedom in South Africa. These groups usually function as a coalition. ‘We do have a vibrant civil society and media lobby groups do assist. Even if the core focus of the vast majority of civil society groups is not media freedom, there is some support.’ 18 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER SOUTH AFRICA 2018