Opinion / Columnist
Zuma cartoon - museum display obscene
31 Oct 2012 at 20:06hrs | Views
There is absolutely no freedom of speech depicted by the cartoon concerning President Zuma. The article can actually lead to the indictment of the person who created it. This is obscene material.The cartoon in question has actually assaulted a lot of people. And above all the lady who was depicted in the cartoon can also pursue civil legal proceedings against the paper or source that created or published this obscene material.
Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression, however, this is rather circumscribed by law. If the freedom of expression transcends to the level in which it tends to violate the law which govern it, then legal proceedings can be instigated against the perpetrator.
The media personnel have immunity from prosecution when they publish certain material about a person who is in the public domain, for example MPs. On the other hand the media owes a duty of care to the ordinary members of the public. The media does not reserve the right to besmirch them unless other wise. As for government officials, footballers and other celebrities that fall under the ambit of public domain, the media has a privilege of publishing anything which they deem necessary.
Again unless otherwise like in the case of the obscene cartoon of his excellent President Zuma. Although the media have the privilege in discussion concerning the group of people aforementioned, still a duty of care is owed. Any recklessness could lead to the prosecution of any media personal or their employer being sued [vicarious liability/liability lies with the employer].
This has been epitomized by recent cases of phone hacking scandals in England. England is a good example of wrong government decision to afford the media unlimited freedom of speech or expression. They have now realized that that this is being used wrongly by their media hence they have now created new bills regarding this, if passed by both Houses of Parliament, the new laws will curtail the freedom of expression. That is, a red tape will be put as a boundary to limit the freedom of speech.
At the moment the English media runs the government and the country. They even create celebrities out of racially abused blacks. This is absurd as it disguise their racial motives.
In Africa there is censorship and that is why most media sources are not always at variance with their governments and the public. In England their media is orientated towards the persecution of blacks while on one hand it exalts their white folk. For example, if a black person is alleged to have committed a crime or just malicious falsehood aimed at any black person, that person will be bullied by the English media. The blacks in question are even labelled derogatory terms, while a white person who has committed or alleged to have committed the same offence is not insulted.
The English media can even go to the extent of inviting the black media to persecute other blacks whilst the black media is not invited to persecute any English white person. [eg the guy who hacked the USA military computers]. On this note there should be some form of reciprocation in order to have a universal freedom of expression or rather to balance the equation. This goes on to explain how equal blacks are to English whites. Africa should therefore not copy the English media as it sets a wrong example of what freedom of speech is.
This does not mean I am campaigning for the restriction of freedom of expression, but my view is simply that due care has to be taken all times, thus says the law. "You should always take reasonable care not to harm your neighbor."
Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression, however, this is rather circumscribed by law. If the freedom of expression transcends to the level in which it tends to violate the law which govern it, then legal proceedings can be instigated against the perpetrator.
The media personnel have immunity from prosecution when they publish certain material about a person who is in the public domain, for example MPs. On the other hand the media owes a duty of care to the ordinary members of the public. The media does not reserve the right to besmirch them unless other wise. As for government officials, footballers and other celebrities that fall under the ambit of public domain, the media has a privilege of publishing anything which they deem necessary.
Again unless otherwise like in the case of the obscene cartoon of his excellent President Zuma. Although the media have the privilege in discussion concerning the group of people aforementioned, still a duty of care is owed. Any recklessness could lead to the prosecution of any media personal or their employer being sued [vicarious liability/liability lies with the employer].
At the moment the English media runs the government and the country. They even create celebrities out of racially abused blacks. This is absurd as it disguise their racial motives.
In Africa there is censorship and that is why most media sources are not always at variance with their governments and the public. In England their media is orientated towards the persecution of blacks while on one hand it exalts their white folk. For example, if a black person is alleged to have committed a crime or just malicious falsehood aimed at any black person, that person will be bullied by the English media. The blacks in question are even labelled derogatory terms, while a white person who has committed or alleged to have committed the same offence is not insulted.
The English media can even go to the extent of inviting the black media to persecute other blacks whilst the black media is not invited to persecute any English white person. [eg the guy who hacked the USA military computers]. On this note there should be some form of reciprocation in order to have a universal freedom of expression or rather to balance the equation. This goes on to explain how equal blacks are to English whites. Africa should therefore not copy the English media as it sets a wrong example of what freedom of speech is.
This does not mean I am campaigning for the restriction of freedom of expression, but my view is simply that due care has to be taken all times, thus says the law. "You should always take reasonable care not to harm your neighbor."
Source - Njabulo
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.