Film and Publication Board

In 2012, the Goodman Gallery in Cape Town, showcased a painting by artist Brett Murray. It depicted President Jacob Zuma in a pose reminiscent of Lenin, but with fully exposed genitalia. The painting drew swift condemnation from the ANC ruling party, who condemned the artist, the artwork, and all media outlets who had published images of the painting.^[6][7] Shortly after, the Film and Publication board sent five assessors to provide a rating for the artwork,^[8] a move that was harshly criticized for being well outside its mandate, and beyond the remit of the purpose of the FPB. Despite this, the FPB issued an "16N" rating, which meant that the Gallery could no longer publicly show the painting if there were children in the building.^{[citation needed]}

During the classification proceedings, there were allegations that the FPB was acting outside its statutory remit, and that specific members had made statements or asked questions implying that it was entitled to censor political opinions and restrict freedom of the press.^[9]

This decision was later appealed following a public backlash, and amidst accusations of state-led censorship. Upon appeal in October 2012, the FPB set aside its original rating, thereby effectively de-classifying the painting. This had taken place after the painting was famously defaced and sold, which rendered the ruling moot on practical terms.^[10][11][12]

In March 2015, the FPB gazetted a notice inviting public comment on a Draft Online Regulation policy, which sought sweeping new powers to police and regulate all aspects of content on the internet.^[13] In this draft policy, the FPB sought to classify all manner of content, including, for instance, user-submitted videos to sites such as YouTube, which would require all such content to first be classified by the FPB at a charge and labelled as FPB-approved before it would be allowed to be legally published online.^[14]

Specifically, the following sections from the draft detail the broadness of the powers FPB seek:

• 5.1.1 Any person who intends to distribute any film, game, or certain publication in the Republic of South Africa shall first comply with section 18(1) of the Act by applying, in the prescribed manner, for registration as film or game and publications distributor.
• 5.1.2 In the event that such film, game or publication is in a digital form or format intended for distribution online using the internet or other mobile platforms, the distributor may bring an application to the Board for the conclusion of an online distribution agreement, in terms of which the distributor, upon payment of the fee prescribed from time to time by the Minister of DOC as the Executive Authority, may classify its online content on behalf of the Board, using the Board's classification Guidelines and the Act.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation described the proposed legislation as follows:

The EFF also went on to point out that the FPB had effectively put the burden on South African ISPs to remove offending content, or replace said content with FPB-approved (and labelled) content, even on platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo and Vine.^[15]

In the response to what is understood as one of the most draconian pieces of internet legislation seen in the world, the FPB has been on the receiving end of a growing online backlash, proliferated through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. In particular, the Right2Know coalition, who advocate open government and whistleblowing, have championed the cause against FPB's draft proposal.^[16]

• Official website