A committee of censors in South Africa has banned, under Section 47 of the Publications Act, 1974, public viewing of the American movie “Kids”, on the grounds that it is “immoral and undesirable.” On 18 September 1996, South Africa’s Director of Publications, Dr. Braam Coetzee, said that the ban had been in effect since 6 […]
A committee of censors in South Africa has banned, under Section
47 of the Publications Act, 1974, public viewing of the American
movie “Kids”, on the grounds that it is “immoral and undesirable.”
On 18 September 1996, South Africa’s Director of Publications, Dr.
Braam Coetzee, said that the ban had been in effect since 6
September, when it was first gazetted. He said the film’s
distributors were given 30 days in which to appeal, failing which
the ban would become official. The ban does not include private
viewing of the film.
In a letter to the distributors of “Kids”, Video Vision
Entertainment, dated 30 August, the committee of censors wrote,
“The present film under consideration lacks merit, it is nothing
more than a vehicle for the portrayal of highly undesirable
immoral and harmful material.” The letter adds that the film does
not contain “any worthwhile story-line.” The committee stated
that, although there was virtually no nudity present in the film,
scenes contained “explicit copulation movements.” The committee of
censors also objected to scenes in which young boys and girls
discussed their sexual exploits in a “crude and vulgar” manner and
language. “In light of the current wave of sexual exploitation of
children and paedophilia,” the committee said, “it was agreed that
the present film can only do harm.” The committee went on to say
that it was convinced that warnings, and age and other viewing
restrictions would not be sufficient to save the film from being
banned, adding that reasonable South Africans would demand “a
total rejection of the film.”
Coetzee denied the ban was in conflict with the constitutional
right to free expression. Coetzee said that freedom of expression
was not an absolute right. “Freedom of expression can be limited
if it can cause harm. The movie is about teenagers not more than
14 [years] old, and, according to the South African Constitution,
the film is regarded as child pornography and cannot be allowed in
the country,” he said.
The Assistant Director of Publications, Stephan du Toit, however,
said that Section 47 of the Publications Act, 1974, was in
conflict with the constitutional right to free expression. “The
constitutional task group has found certain parts of the Act
unconstitutional and that is why they are repealing it.” Du Toit,
however, said that the committee of censors used this act because
it was still on the South African statute books, but added, “The
new Act will still ban films depicting child pornography like
‘Kids’.” He said the new Act would be called the Film and
Publications Act.
Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) Chief Executive Jeannette
Minnie said she resented the fact that the government made a
choice for adults. Minnie believes that free choice is linked
directly to access to information. “As an adult I must have a free
choice….” She said that, for adults, it did not make any
difference whether there were good or bad values. “There could be
the worst stuff on the screen, I should see it if I want.” She
said she was opposed to government playing the role of a parent.
“Government should protect rights instead and not [decide] what is
good for us.”
