Local Porn Website deadline looming

Can someone clear this up please

What are the rules, and where have they been documented / gazetted / whatevered...
Are they prosecuting locally hosted pornographic sites? I.e. 196.x.x.x IP's, or are they prosecuting foreign hosted sites managed / owned by locally registered firms? Are they prosecuting individuals who support these sites (local or overseas)?
Thanks!

Ok - [edit] Distributors of adult content can request a license from the FPB which will allow them to continue business but there are strict conditions attached to the license:

1. Such distribution or exhibition takes place within premises forming part of a building,
2. Notices prohibiting entry to such premises by any person under the age of 18 years is clearly displayed at all entrances to such premises and,
3. No material classified “X18” is displayed in such a way that it is visible from a point outside the premises. [/edit]
found an answer
 
Last edited:
What are the rules, and where have they been documented / gazetted / whatevered...
Are they prosecuting locally hosted pornographic sites? I.e. 196.x.x.x IP's, or are they prosecuting foreign hosted sites managed / owned by locally registered firms? Are they prosecuting individuals who support these sites (local or overseas)?
Thanks!

Ok - [edit] Distributors of adult content can request a license from the FPB which will allow them to continue business but there are strict conditions attached to the license:

1. Such distribution or exhibition takes place within premises forming part of a building,
2. Notices prohibiting entry to such premises by any person under the age of 18 years is clearly displayed at all entrances to such premises and,
3. No material classified “X18” is displayed in such a way that it is visible from a point outside the premises. [/edit]
found an answer

How do those conditions cover the net though?
 
Have to wonder how enforceable this is going to be.
 
the Board advises the South African Police Services to investigate and charge any person using above-mentioned media for distribution of films, interactive computer games or publications which have either not been classified by the Board or classified ‘XX’ or ‘X18’,” said the FPB.

So, legally, they could charge anybody for distributing any media, not just porn, that isn't pre-approved?? That sounds like dangerous censorship to me!!
 
So, legally, they could charge anybody for distributing any media, not just porn, that isn't pre-approved?? That sounds like dangerous censorship to me!!
nope - only relates to certain kinds of content (at this stage although watch this space)

i do believe that porn needs to be less accessible but clearly the FPB does not have an intelligent plan for achieving this

govt seems to haver an incredibly difficult time getting to grips with the borderless nature of the internet
 
Hi all,

I tried to locate any governing regulation or notice but no such documents exist. It seems that this is based on a mere "statement" by the FPB and not a formal regulation in terms of the Act.

In any event, this form of content control raises serious Constitutional concerns - the right to free speech, the right to receive and impart information and the right to freedom of belief. If the aim of the prohibition is to protect kids from online porn it is i) totally overbroad and prohibits much more Constitutionally protected speech than anything else; and ii) totally unenforceable. Website owners will simply moves their sites to other locations and keep on using the same domain names as before. Who decides what 'adult' material is? Does safe sex advice, guidelines on condom use, erotic art, soft porn and the like fall within the scope of the prohibition? If so, the Bible and most of Shakespeas words will be prohibited - most action movies and music videos also! Very steep and muddy slippery slope here!

If protecting kids are the main objective here, maybe they should also consider banning racist sites, violent video games, sites that learn kids how to make bombs and most importantly sites that encourage the download and sharing of copyrighted material such as music and movies.

Whatever we think of porn, the online porn industry deserves the same Constitutional protection as Childline.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly stopped similar prohibitions in the US because of Constitutional (specifically free speech) rights. We cannot protect kids by taking away the rights of adults.

For more see: http://www.eff.org/Censorship and http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
 
nope - only relates to certain kinds of content (at this stage although watch this space)

i do believe that porn needs to be less accessible but clearly the FPB does not have an intelligent plan for achieving this

govt seems to haver an incredibly difficult time getting to grips with the borderless nature of the internet

Does that statute itself only relate to certain kinds of content though or is it onnly being applied to certain kinds at the moment? Just wondering if the law's scope could be expanded in future.
 
The full page ad in the Sunday Times this week did a wonderful job of showing exactly how clueless the FPB is.
They must have got a right royal reaming from the parents of school kids getting porn on their cellphones etc. Cuz they know they have to do something, but have no idea what do do.
Quoting verbatim from an act designed to black-out the windows of the local hustler store and thinking it is in anyway applicable to cyberspace is idiocy in the extreme.
The law needs to be amended, and even if it is, there is a whopping 9 people in the country enforcing the law. That is 9 too many in my opinion.
I have no inclination to pay for the expansion of another useless bureaucracy.

Shokie Bopape-Dlomo needs to get a clue before trying to rule by decree.
 
Does that statute itself only relate to certain kinds of content though or is it onnly being applied to certain kinds at the moment? Just wondering if the law's scope could be expanded in future.
there is an amendment bill under consideration which would dramatically expand the scope of the bill - not only in respect of content but also in respect of who falls under the Act. Since 1961 newspapers, magazines and broadcasters have been exempted from the requirement that they obtain pre-classification of certain kinds of content - this as a result of an agreement between the govt and industry which has held firm for 45 years. Govt has now indicated its intention to revoke this agreement....

i do not believe they will get this amendment thru in its current form but the mere fact of trying is worrying

...as is usually the case where govt intends to regulate online - indecipherable, vague, unworkable and unenforceable
 
Just a Question... can the FPB act without a compliant from the public? Can they be the complainant?

I was wondering cuz I wanted to know what the purpose was of advertising jobs for "cyber-censors" like they recently have would be?
 
Just a Question... can the FPB act without a compliant from the public? Can they be the complainant?

I was wondering cuz I wanted to know what the purpose was of advertising jobs for "cyber-censors" like they recently have would be?
afaik complaints were needed for post-publication review...e.g. scope did not have to pass its latest edition past the FPB before it was published but once published a complaint could be made and the censors would spring into action

where classification is required prior to publication or distribution (think age restrictions on movies) this is a general legal obligation which must be complied with otherwise it will be an offence under the Act - no complaint would necessarily be required from a member of the public
 
Another consipiracy

This is all in wake of local internet traffic liberalizations. Telkom has realised the loss of revenue they incured becouse of the extenisve usage of local porn sites and decided to looby parent groups to demand complete censorship of all local internet content. Thus forcing all local internet content providers (porn or otherwise) to take the sites off shore like everything else so Telkom can charge more money for international traffic!!!
 
what you may or may not see, and I for one, am not going to take this lying down,” said Adultlinks spokesperson.

:D Am I the only one that finds this part funny :D
 
maybe they should also consider banning racist sites, violent video games, sites that learn kids how to make bombs and most importantly sites that encourage the download and sharing of copyrighted material such as music and movies.
Children learn racism from their parents, not web sites.

Children should learn how to make bombs from their parents.

Keep your hands off video games. No different to attacking pornography "to protect the children".

Banning sites that supposedly encourage sharing copyrighted material would be fruitless. And it wouldn't protect children even if it were possible.
 
afaik complaints were needed for post-publication review...e.g. scope did not have to pass its latest edition past the FPB before it was published but once published a complaint could be made and the censors would spring into action

where classification is required prior to publication or distribution (think age restrictions on movies) this is a general legal obligation which must be complied with otherwise it will be an offence under the Act - no complaint would necessarily be required from a member of the public
The problem with acting on complaints is that you are quite possibly dealing with a minority. You have one loud complainer and suddenly everyone's rights get trampled.

In my opinion classification should be voluntary and if a movie is classified or not it should be up to a parent to decide whether their child is allowed to view the material. Unclassified material should be considered de facto 18 and over, but if a parent accompanies the child they should be able to take them to any show regardless of the classification.

Since 1961 newspapers, magazines and broadcasters have been exempted from the requirement that they obtain pre-classification of certain kinds of content - this as a result of an agreement between the govt and industry which has held firm for 45 years. Govt has now indicated its intention to revoke this agreement....
Surely the previous government did not honour this in any way?
 
*rolls eyes* These people really have nothing better to do with their time, do they? People don't quite seem to grasp that even if they manage to ban porn companies in South Africa, it doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of porn sites globally.

I find it ridiculous simply because on E-TV at midnight, there are hundreds of ridiculous cellular porn ads for god knows who, and that's just plain irritating. Especially when the poker was on the other night and every 5 minutes there are huge tits floating all over your TV.
 
Back
Top