Right, so the aim of the Media Appeals Tribunal is to (allegedly) assist people who want to take on the media by providing them with a platform with which to seek some form of redress for some hurtful comments or stories that may have been written about them in the media.
At present our Law of Defamation forms part of the Law of Delict, a system of laws that determine how you must go about proving your damages, if you feel you have suffered damages of some sort. An important consideration, when dealing with the Law of Delict, is that you only get what you prove. So if you can only show R1 000 in damages, you will only get R1 000. Unlike the American courts, our courts do not award damages for pain and suffering. The problem with litigation is that it is expensive. After all, lawyers are entitled to earn a decent wage surely?
So taking government statements at face value, we need to find a way to assist potential litigants. The government remains dedicated to the principle of freedom of speech (bearing in mind, you can say what you want, provided you do what you are told). This is where I had a stroke of genius early this morning … Let’s increase the price of petrol by 10c/l. This money will be paid into a Central Defamation Fund. Anyone who feels that their reputation has been tarnished in some way by those evil people called journalists, can then apply to the Central Defamation Fund to have their litigation bankrolled by the South African populace. The principle being that anyone can apply for funding. After all, you never know when you too may be the target of the media! Just look at how they chase down innocent government ministers, holed up in their inexpensive hotels at the taxpayers expense.
I realise that a principle weakness of my Central Defamation Fund is that it lends itself to possible corruption. More jobs for pals, more public money that needs to spent, and importantly, it presents another opportunity to fund an expensive vehicle and hotel stay as the director of the Central Defamation Fund would also be entitled to the use of a blue-light brigade as he/she hunts down those evil journalists. But if you can keep politicians busy with new and exciting means of siphoning off public money, maybe they will forget about the media.
At the end of the day there would be no need for a Media Appeals Tribunal, media independence remains intact, there is no need to amend or introduce laws and make parliamentarians work, the politicians remain happy in their expensive cars and hotels, the lawyers get their slice of the cake and our judges can start doing an honest day’s work. And if a defamation case is never successfully prosecuted using money from the Central Defamation Fund, who cares? It may increase employment in our courts as people roll up to sue the media with what little funds are available. It sounds like everyone will be happy all around. Viva CDF viva!
if something in the media is found to be false, they should have to retract on the front page for double the time of their inaccuracy. not a little note at the bottom of page 5 after a screaming headline
Your idea is flawed. It gives media houses freedom to abuse like they do now .why not get the media houses contribute every year to this fund and leave the public alone. Whats petrol got to do with it Any paper who lose a case is made to replenish the coffers.any litigant who loses is also made to replenish the coffers.
That will keep journos honest and the publishers on their toes.
At the moment all one needs to do is dream a story and publish it and let the the person abused sweat it.Some sense has to be brought into journalism.Every word of a published story has to be true.Example is if something happened on the 18th of may and the reporter says it happened on the 30th of may its not good enough. He must be brought to account.What is the reporter being paid for if she cant get her facts right
What is published should be fact not rumor or opinion masquarading as fact. Every published story must be able to stand a thorough analysis.
Jornos just want a licence to abuse and get away with it. Paying for litigation against them would make them honest
I am just curious why you think that I, as someone who uses petrol, should pay an extra 10c / litre so that someone that may or may not use petrol can sue a third party. I can understand a surcharge on petrol if it goes to something vehicle / road related, but not for scenarios like this.
Rather add 10c to the price of a newspaper, so that the surcharge is related to where the defamation might come from.
Up with the Bucs!!!
@ haiwa: gosh, what did journalists ever do to you!
This media tribunal may be made law – then woe to those people who seek to protect themselves and obscure issues. Legitimate journalism may become too difficult and too expensive – then the exposing will be left in the hands of the social media. Try to stop a rumour on Twitter, my friends! Try to hold a social-media rumourmonger to account…
As a journalist myself – although not in news – my mission has always been to provide true and useful information which helps people make up their own minds. Believe me, that’s not what you’ll face in the world of social media!
Doozy, its one thing for my exgirlfriend to slag me on twitter- quite another for for M&G take that ball and run with it.
Papers state fact not rumour. They must stand by their word.Legislation to that effect is long overdue.If analysis of the story wont stand in court dont publish it.
Guys, if defamed you turn to the law. If you don’t trust the law and the justice system, why trust a media tribunal. SA needs basic lessons in democracy, badly.
Eish Haiwa, you say that “Legislation to that effect is long overdue.” Where have you been my bra? It’s called the legal system. The apparachicks and tenderpreneurs of the current regime have been successfully hiding behind it for some time now…
Haiwa, there’s seldom smoke without fire. If you’re in the kitchen, you ought to be able to stand the heat. Nobody owes no-one nuttin’! The legal remedies already exist without a political tribunal, thanks. And servants public are to serve the people, elected to urgently roll out water, houses, clinics, schools, jobs. I never liked the idea of closeting fascism and a Tribunal with lipstick is still a cold, dangerous Caspir – do we even need to remind?!
finally… he has been un-coped…
Warren, the law of delict allows for compensation for pain and suffering. I think you meant to say that it does not provide for punitive damages?