New court move against StarSat porn

Application based on ”Scientific evidence’ that pornography harms society

Compiled from reports by Tech Central and mybroadband

The broadcasting of pornography by StarSat (formerly Top TV) is facing a new court challenge from an organisation which says it has scientific evidence that pornography harms society.

- Advertisement -

Non profit human rights organisation,’Cause for Justice’, has filed papers at the high court in Pretoria asking for a review of a decision by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) in April 2013 to allow StarSat, which is owned by On Digital Media, to offer three pornographic channels. Icasa had previously blocked TopTV’s porn plans in January 2013 after concluding that there is no evidence to demonstrate that pornography is a direct cause of gender-based violence.

- Advertisement -

The organisation says: “Cause for Justice is bringing this application out of an honest and sincere concern for the people of South Africa and we are accordingly acting in the public interest. Our application is based on scientifically researched evidence, which shows a conclusive link between exposure to pornography and harm to society. We submit that the risk of harm to society from allowing pornography to be broadcast in South Africa, even in a subscription service environment, far outweighs the potential benefit to be gained by the members of our society from having free access thereto on their television screens.”

The organisation says that in spite of “overwhelming public opposition” to On Digital Media’s application to broadcast the channels, the authority went ahead and gave it the nod anyway.

- Advertisement -

A public hearing was held on March 14, 2013. The following organisations made oral submissions: Family Policy Institute; African Christian Democratic Party; Free Society Institute; Doctors For Life; Africa Christian Action; Shofar Christian Church; Free Society Institute; Active for Jesus; and Evergreen Parenting. According to Cause for Justice, 90% of written submissions were opposed to the porn channels, while seven of the nine oral presentations were also opposed.

‘Irrelevant considerations’
It says Icasa’s decision should be set aside because the authority took “irrelevant considerations” into account while ignoring “relevant” ones. It also argues that Icasa committed reviewable errors of law and did not follow a fair administrative process. In addition, the conclusions that Icasa reached were not “rationally connected to the reasons given” or to the information before it”.

It says that Icasa “failed to get to grips with and deal with four vital issues regarding pornography”. It says these are:

• Pornography is psychologically harmful to children. “Although Icasa’s authorisation makes provision to protect children from viewing pornographic channels with a Pin mechanism, we submit in our court application that this mechanism does not ensure adequate protection,” it says.
• Pornography is addictive. “It is a form of sex addiction. It is inseparable from and linked to other forms of sex addiction.”
• Pornography “incites some men, those who are prone to such things, to commit violence and rape”.
• Exposure to so-called “soft” porn “creates a desire for viewing progressively more sexually explicit material. In the process pornography desensitises people to rape and gender violence and damages or destroys healthy loving relationships.”

The Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) was studying court papers filed against its decision to award three adult entertainment content channels to TopTV, now StarSat, the body said on Tuesday. Icasa spokesman Paseka Maleka said it was opposing the action by Cause for Justice, reports iolnews.

Cause for Justice’s lawsuit follows a similar application made by Justice Alliance of South Africa (Jasa) in the Western Cape high court in November.

Cause for Justice says it has served the application on Icasa, On Digital Media, Icasa chairman Stephen Mncube, On Digital Media business rescue practitioner Peter van den Steen and communications minister Yunus Carrim.

The organisations’s lawsuit follows a similar application made by Justice Alliance of South Africa (Jasa) in the Western Cape high court in November.

Jasa director John Smyth QC was quoted at the time as saying that Icasa “erred in law in failing to find that the constitutional rights of children were laws of general application which should have trumped the rights of TopTV to freedom of expression”.

“We contend that fixing a watershed time of 8pm flies in the face of common sense, bearing in mind that most teenage children finish their homework at about 8pm and then watch TV for an hour or two before bedtime,” Smyth said.