Podcast crackdown proposed in South Africa

Parliament is looking for a means to regulate podcast content in South Africa, as there is a regulatory gap due to outdated legislation. However, self-regulation is an option for the industry.

This is according to Khusela Diko, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies.

Diko told eNCA that the need to regulate this content does not stem from a specific incident but from outdated broadcast content laws.

“The issue of regulation of podcasts and over-the-top services has been a matter that has preoccupied the committee since its establishment in July last year,” Diko said.

“The Broadcasting Act, which regulates broadcasting media, is as old as 1999, and the Electronic Communications Act is as old as 2005.”

In addition to the outdated legislation, Diko also pointed to the long overdue audio and audiovisual content services (AAVCS) policy.

The AAVCS aims to modernise broadcasting regulations in South Africa so that digital content providers like streaming services meet requirements similar to those of traditional broadcasters.

This would bring content such as podcasts on digital content platforms, like YouTube, into the regulatory scope of the South African government.

Diko said that the Broadcasting Act of 1999 currently defines media as community, commercial, or public broadcasting, which does not extend far enough to include large parts of the media, such as online content.

This has resulted in South Africa opting for a mostly self-regulated system, partially supported by core regulations.

For instance, in the case of print, several media houses have come together to form the Press Council of South Africa, where the members have formulated and abide by a code of practice and ethics.

This is similar to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which regulates radio and television broadcasts in South Africa.

“We’re saying that the government needs to extend the scope of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to include platforms such as those that include podcasts,” Diko said.

“However, a key consideration for us is that South Africans need access to recourse. You can’t have a platform where anything goes and has no regulatory parity.”

When asked whether regulating podcast content might infringe on South Africans’ freedom of expression and stifle digital creativity, Diko said nothing is further from the truth.

She argued that no South African would want to return to the censorship and suppression of ideas that many have experienced in the past.

“We believe in, and will always protect, the constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of expression,” Diko argued.

“But as we do so, we also have an obligation to protect the rights of the people who use these podcast platforms, including equality, dignity, and privacy.”

Diko says that the government would want to regulate these platforms because they are being used for harmful expression.

However, she argues that if the podcast industry can find a means of self-regulation that allows for freedom of expression without harming others, the government will likely accept this type of regulation.

Regulating over-the-top services

Given the rapid entry of over-the-top (OTT) platforms in the country over the past decade, South Africa is considering regulating services like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video.

OTT services deliver multimedia content via the Internet instead of traditional satellite, cable, or terrestrial broadcasting technology.

Among the AAVCS’s proposals is that streaming services with annual turnovers of over R50 million must obtain operating licences.

In addition to requiring licences, the policy proposes that local content quotas be imposed on large streaming services.

If a streamer cannot meet the quota, it must contribute to a fund for local content creation. This can be a cheaper alternative than setting up or investing in local productions themselves.

This is similar to what European countries and the United Kingdom have implemented to ensure that predominantly US-based streaming giants contribute to socio-economic upliftment in the countries where they operate.

In some cases, a portion of these so-called “contestable” funds is set aside for public broadcasting.