"We are delighted with the ruling that his comments were not sexist. In light of the fact that what he said was in many cases taken out of context as well as misquoted, we feel that this is indeed a victory for free speech," says station manager, Aisha Mohamed.
The findings state that, "To interpret the presenter's verbal image of young people engaged in sexual activity (or drinking) as constituting hate speech would be a gross overreaction. Indeed, to do so would trivialise the very notion of hate speech. The dangers of crying wolf at every opportunity should be borne in mind, especially in the context of hate speech, which poses very real dangers against women and other groups in our society.
"If the hate speech alarm is sounded indiscriminately, it will lose its efficacy and power in cases where hate speech genuinely exists, and where it needs to be dealt with according to the Broadcasting Code, section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic and the Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. In this instance, advocacy of hatred based on gender is not present. The complaint already fails on the gender requirement. In fact, there is also no advocacy, but simply an opinion which is aired."
The report goes on to say that, "If offensive words are restricted without reasonable grounds, as set out in section 36 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, it would quench vibrant debate, which is an essential element of any democracy. It would, in any case, be constitutionally extraordinary if an opinion were to be limited merely because it is offensive... The presenter was simply making a hyperbolic and seemingly off-the-cuff generalisation aimed at 22-year-olds, based on a stereotype of that age group's preoccupation with sex and alcohol."
"This is yet another example of a complaint based on hearsay and misquoting. Thank goodness for the BCCSA, they seem to agree with my response on garethcliff.com, which I posted shortly after this storm in a teacup," adds Cliff.
