Fxi support against gagging of community journalist

The following is a statement from the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXi) regarding the gagging of David Robert Lewis and threat of a defamation suit. For the record, Lewis considers anti-semitism to be a form of racism, and islamophobia is also racism.

29 August 2006

Hein Brand, Managing Director, Media24, hbrand@media24.com
Jan Malherbe, Media24 Newspapers Chief Executive, jmalherbe@media24.com
Neil Jansen, Human Resources General Manager, Media24, njansen@media24.com
Dear Messrs Brand, Malherbe and Jansen

Re: Media24’s threats against your former employee, David Lewis

We have been dismayed that Media24 has sought to muzzle one of your former employees, David Lewis, with threats of a defamation suit and of being interdicted by yourselves.
Mr Lewis had been an employee of Media24, working as a page sub for certain of its Cape Town publications. He has complained of racial divisions in the newsroom in which he worked and of various forms of racism in the company. We do not wish to engage with the merits of this complaint.

In June this year, a group calling itself the Alternative Media Forum began distributing a leaflet entitled “Ja Baas!” The leaflet refers to Media 24’s publications and claims that, “Naspers and Media24 is a racist and prejudiced company, here only for a quick buck. It has paid lip service to diversity and equality in the workplace and continues to discriminate.” (The allegations in this leaflet, too, it is not our objective to engage with or to prove or disprove.)

Your company responded to this leaflet by sending Mr Lewis an attorney’s letter (from Jan S. De Villers Attorneys, dated 26 June 2006) which claims that he is distributing the pamphlet and accusing him of defaming Media24. The attorney’s letter threatens Mr Lewis with an urgent application for an interdict to prevent him from distributing the pamphlets and notes that Media24 “reserves the right to institute an action for damages” against Mr Lewis for “the defamatory remarks” in the pamphlet. We find both the tone and substance of the attorney’s letter to be intimidatory and an attempt to violate the free expression of a member of the public.

Section 16 of the South African Constitution guarantees all South African citizens the right to free expression when it states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes –
freedom of the press and other media;
freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
freedom of artistic creativity; and

academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” This right has, furthermore, been upheld in numerous court judgements – including in judgements issued by the Constitutional Court, the highest court in South Africa. For example, the Supreme Court of Appeals made a strong statement in affirming the right to freedom of expression in the Bogoshi case, just as the Constitutional Court did in the Holomisa case.

As a media company (“Africa’s leading publishing group,” as you refer to yourselves), you should understand the critical importance of freedom of expression in the South African context and the need to vigorously guard it from any and all sectors of our society that might seek to subvert it. It is not a right that should be undermined – certainly not by the media whose very existence and work are dependant on the highest respect and adherence to this right.
It is extremely disconcerting, therefore, that Media24 has chosen to resort to threats (such as those contained in your attorney’s letter) in order to silence a journalist and, in so doing, is undermining a value and right that it should be protecting and defending.

Recently, the media came out in full support of protests launched by the Freedom of Expression Institute, South African National Editors Forum and the Media Institute of Southern Africa against the Film and Publications Amendment Bill. A number of your media jumped on the bandwagon too. And, through Sanef, a number of your editors and senior journalists have taken a strong position on the matter of freedom of expression. One of your own publications, City
Press, stated that:

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Politicians will always try to limit the powers of the media. Even in well-established democracies, politicians still try to take away rights by arguing that some rights are not good for citizens. It is for this reason that we should all jealously guard the freedoms that we have secured through our supreme law – the Constitution.”
It is sad to note that while we are all concerned about politicians taking away the rights of the media, some media want to take away the right to free expression of journalists and other citizens. To “jealously guard the freedoms that we have secured through … the Constitution” means securing those freedoms for all people, not just ourselves. The Western Cape convenor of Sanef (and one of your columnists and a former editor of one of your publications), Lizette Rabe, wrote more than one column on News24 about the Bill. In one, she correctly wrote: “Freedom of expression and freedom of the media is a fundamental part of any definition about democracy.” We wonder what her response would be to your attempts at subverting the free expression of your former employee.

We want also to point out that your accusations of defamation against Mr Lewis are as worrying as they are spurious. Wits journalism professor, Anton Harber, wrote last month, “Defamation will be the battleground for the media freedom wars of the foreseeable future.” It seems that Media24 is intent on proving Professor Harber correct – but in ways that we doubt even he expected. The use of the defamation stick on your part is an indication of your desperation in wanting to silence Mr Lewis’ criticism (correct or not) of your company.

You also realise, of course, that Mr Lewis is easily able to use the defences of truth, public interest and fair comment in this case – despite your attorney’s claim that the pamphlet “exceed[s] the parameters of fair comment”. We doubt that you would want to come up against these defences in court – the very defences that you as a media institution would rely on were you to be sued for defamation.

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that companies and other non-natural persons cannot be defamed under the law. As such, your accusation against Mr Lewis is clearly meant simply to intimidate him into self-censorship, another theme that many of your senior journalists have been writing a lot about recently.

As an institution that works for the protection of freedom of expression in South Africa and the rest of the African continent, we cannot allow such intimidation – whether it is of the media or of individual journalists. We have, therefore, pledged our support to Mr Lewis in his attempts to defend himself against your charges and attempts at intimidation.

We encourage you to spare yourselves the embarrassment of being viewed as a media institution that wants to subvert freedom of expression. You should immediately give Mr Lewis an assurance of the withdrawal of the attorney’s letter and an assurance that you do not plan to take any legal action against him. Your failure to do so will certainly result in a view developing of Media24 as being hypocritical on the question of free expression and of supporting it only in respect of itself but without consideration of that right for other people.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact either of us.
Yours sincerely
__________________ _______________
Na’eem Jeenah Simon Delaney
Head: Anti-Censorship Programme Head: Law Clinic

DISCRIMINATION 24

DISCRIMINATION 24, the global media company accused of corporate apartheid is going to be rendered ungovernable by THE MEDIA HACKERS BALL who are holding GROOT BAAS/BIG BOSS Ton Vosloo and Koos Bekker responsible for racism, anti-semitism and prejudice within the company. We are planning an international campaign that will include corporate sanctions and the use of satire, acts of humour, social gags and whatever we can lay our hands on. Bloggers are invited to submit their own cartoons and images, and a more comprehensive web-site is being planned in solidarity with the Alternative Media Forum who are under attack by various employees of the company, and in particular to assist convener David Robert Lewis who is facing a gagging order preventing him from speaking on the subject.

Media convener may be jailed for contempt

CAPE TOWN: The convener of South Africa's Alternative Media Forum may be jailed for contempt of court for speaking out about racism in a media company, unless a means of defending him against a pending legal action is found and legal council secured. If an urgent interdict and gagging order is granted to Naspers MIH i.e. Media24, the global media corporation, the police may be given licence to jail Lewis and other media activists who form part of the NGO pitted against the corporation, for an automatic 21 days for contempt of court.

Media24 corporate executives have only to phone their local cop-shop and allege infringement to be given the full force of the law which currently discriminates against individuals in favour of large corporations, and this despite allegations of racial profiling and segregation in the workplace.

Horror stories of jailed activists abound. Take the experience of Max Ntanyana who was interdicted from speaking and writing against forced evictions and even prevented from participating in meetings of the anti-eviction campaign. He failed to contest the interdict and thus brok a court order by continuing in the campaign, only to end up spending about 9 months in the country's toughest prison, Pollsmoor, on various contempt-of-court charges, until finally 2 years later fellow some activists managed to raise the necessary funds to have the conditions of the original interdict overturned.

Surely a denial of civil rights and liberties despite there being constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and association?

On a lighter note, Na'eem Jeenah of the Freedom of Expression Institute called this morning to offer his support to the campaign. In the event that this all does end up in court, FXi may be appointed amicus. A similar trial against Angloplats is also in the offing, and the principle at stake is this: Corporations should not enjoy the same rights as individuals, and since they are not persons, cannot be defamed!

BREAKING NEWS: Cathryn Reece, the editor of Varsity, the University of Cape Town's student newspaper and a SASPU affiliate has indicated that she intends covering this story which until now has been ignored by the mainstream press.

Pending action by Naspers not yet final

CAPE TOWN: The convener of the Alternative Media Forum in Cape Town, David Robert Lewis, says the forum has received legal opinion from the Cape Town Legal Resource Centre, and according to them: " the threat of an interdict by Naspers is precisely that, a threat that has no legal substance until actually served by a court of law."

"After a first hearing there should be a second hearing in which the interdict on the controversial pamphlet released at the recent Cape Town Book Fair (and now being reproduced on campus) is made final". The main thing here is to avoid panic and the situation where the audi rule is ignored, people are detained and there is no access to a fair hearing. South Africa's legal system is still recovering from years of systematic abuse of the rule of law. "For years our civil rights have been ignored, and I don't see why this time is going to be any different," says Lewis.

Media24 have via their attorney's indicated that they intend interdicting Lewis in his private capacity and suing for defamation unless he supplies "a written undertaking on or before close of business on Monday 3 July 2006 confirming (he) will not distribute any further pamphlets or make any similar remarks concerning our client ". The Alternative Media Forum has no intention of responding in writing since the lawyers letter was only delivered on July 18, and rejects the action taken by Media24 with contempt.

Lewis says: "as convener of the Alternative Media Forum -- an NGO which has shown solidarity with the Anti-War Movement, he is "exploring various avenues in order to issue a counter-action and/or claim against the company for damages as a result of their action to deny civil rights and liberties in this regard."

A further statement regarding this proposed action will be issued once the legal issues become clearer.

AltMediaF statement on Film and Publications Act amendment

The proposed amendment to the Film and Publications Act is a regressive, step in the wrong direction, and to be condemned by all those who believe in press freedom, however the Alternative Media Forum believes more should be done by South Africa's press to avoid self-censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech in the newsroom.

While South Africa's press freedom is enshrined in article 16 (1) (in chapter two of our constitution), the only constraints against press freedom in South Africa's constitution are in section 16 (2). Press freedom does not extend to "propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." How much hate speech and propaganda for war have we seen plugged by South Africa's Media Houses over the last few years?

The Home Affairs Ministry has proposed that the current exemption on pre-publication censorship in the Act be removed, with the effect that the print and broadcast media may be subjected to the dictates of the Film and Publications board. The result amounts to the regulation and licencing of South Africa's print media which has for decades enjoyed relative freedom as the "fourth estate". The step however, is to be expected in a climate in which regulation of press freedom has fallen upon the dictates of a few corporate bosses and the boardrooms of large corporations who have no business being in media.

How many journalists have been censored simply for exercising their rights to resist violence and war? South Africa's media has a lot to answer for in its coverage of the Middle East crisis, and the War against Terror. In fact the real pedofiles are those who believe they can suppress the truth, and ignore the anti-war movement and their recent call for sanctions against Israel, a state built upon terror. Baby killers across the globe are being given succour by the media while peace activists go missing, reporters have their houses trashed, and people are detained in the name of globalisation and empire building.

We call upon the National Editor's Forum and its allies to abandon its policy of blacklisting those it does not agree with, and to stop banning journalists who question the international system. We also call upon our government to let the constitution guide law-making and to avoid contradicting article 16 of our Bill of Rights


For more information about the amendment: http://www.sangonet.org.za/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4937&Itemid=1

AltMediaF participates in Sanctions Against Israel March

AltMediaF is part of the Sanctions Against Israel Coalition -- In exchange for support of our call for Corporate Sanctions against Media24, the forum participated in yesterday's ralley in Cape Town. An estimated 3000 people attended the protest against Israeli aggression in Lebanon, however, AltMediaF has distanced itself from calls by some in the coalition for the "destruction of the Israeli state". The dismantling of the nation-state can only come about by peaceful means and via a reorganisation of the structure of the United Nations.

AltMediaF believes people should be free to debate the issues at hand, and to hold different opinions and points of view. It respects freedom of speech and the right to protest against Israeli as well as Palestinian aggression. The forum does not support violence of any kind or the threat of force.