The constitutionality of categorical and conditional restrictions on harmful expression related to group identity
| dc.contributor.advisor | Pretorius, J. L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Marais, Maria Elizabeth | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-10-19T10:29:55Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-10-19T10:29:55Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2014-01 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-01 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2014-01 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: The theories of truth and the marketplace of ideas, of democracy, and of human dignity underlie the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and simultaneously set boundaries with regard to such protection. The value of expression in terms of these theories firstly determines the scope of protection afforded to particular forms and incidences of expression. There exists an inherent tension in the appeal of each of the values and interests that is involved. Freedom of expression is central to the development of human personality, but may also harm inherent human dignity. The response to discriminatory expression may eventually promote equality. Free expression may be instrumental to the increase in knowledge and to the maintenance of democracy, but may also discourage target groups from participating in the marketing of ideas and in the democratic process. Secondly, the extent to which a discriminatory statement or expressive conduct serves the values and interests of knowledge, democracy and dignity is a relevant consideration in the context of proportionality analyses. It determines the weight to be assigned to the right to freedom of expression relative to other rights or interests that are involved. The Constitution, in terms of section 16(2)(c), categorically excludes, from constitutional protection, “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”. “Hate speech” on these grounds constitutes a proven threat to constitutional democracy. Expression of this nature should be criminalised. Circumstances may exist where “hate speech” on other grounds poses a similar threat and should likewise be criminalised. Current atrocities in South Africa related to homosexuality and nationality constitute such circumstances. This approach is in accordance with South Africa’s obligations in terms of international agreements. Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act categorically prohibits a narrowly defined field of expression, including expression under section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. The prohibition does not criminalise expression and does not apply to bona fide engagement in expression stipulated in terms of section 16(1) of the Constitution. Within the limited field that remains, it prohibits expression related to any prohibited ground that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, harmful, or to incite harm or promote or propagate hatred. The prohibition will be constitutional if it can be accepted that the expression will, in all given circumstances, constitute or promote unfair discrimination. Considerations in the South African context of the values that inform the protection as well as the restriction of expression, and of international obligations, lead to a positive conclusion in this respect. Of essential importance is the fact that the prohibition does not stifle debate about issues, even if statements relevant to the debate offend people with reference to their group identity. Section 6 of the Act prohibits unfair discrimination, subject to a fairness analysis. It is often not possible to determine whether the effect of discriminatory expression in the broad societal context is indeed detrimental. In the media context, the unequal balance of power in given circumstances reinforces the risk that inequality will be promoted. In the determination of fairness, care should be taken not to restrict expression without sufficient context-related indications of disadvantage. At the same time, the obligation to prohibit unfair discrimination, and the categorical restriction in terms of section 10, may not be disregarded. In the light of section 192 of the Constitution, these considerations are particularly significant with respect to broadcasting. The present broadcasting codes lack the necessary related guidelines and should be amended accordingly. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Die teorieë van waarheid en die markplek van idees, demokrasie, en menswaardigheid is onderliggend aan die grondwetlike beskerming van vryheid van uitdrukking, en begrens terselfdertyd die beskerming. Die waarde van uitdrukking ingevolge hierdie teorieë bepaal eerstens die omvang van die beskerming wat aan spesifieke vorms en gevalle van uitdrukking verleen word. Daar bestaan 'n inherente spanning in die aanspraak van elkeen van die waardes en belange wat ter sprake is. Vryheid van uitdrukking is sentraal in die ontwikkeling van die persoonlikheid, maar kan ook inherente menswaardigheid skend. Reaksie op diskriminerende uitdrukking kan uiteindelik gelykheid bevorder. Vry uitdrukking kan instrumenteel wees tot die vermeerdering van kennis en die instandhouding van die demokrasie, maar kan ook deelname van teikengroepe aan die bemarking van idees en die demokratiese proses ontmoedig. Tweedens is die mate waarin 'n diskriminerende stelling of ekspressiewe handeling die waardes en belange van kennis, demokrasie en menswaardigheid dien, 'n relevante oorweging in die konteks van proporsionaliteitsanalise. Dit bepaal die gewig wat aan die reg op vryheid van uitdrukking toegeken word relatief tot ander relevante regte en belange. Artikel 16(2)(c) van die Grondwet sluit “die verkondiging van haat wat op ras, etnisiteit, geslagtelikheid of godsdiens gebaseer is en wat aanhitsing om leed te veroorsaak” kategories van grondwetlike beskerming uit. “Haatspraak” op hierdie gronde hou 'n bewese bedreiging vir grondwetlike demokrasie in. Uitdrukking van hierdie aard behoort gekriminaliseer te word. Omstandighede mag bestaan waar “haatspraak” op ander gronde 'n soortgelyke bedreiging inhou en dienooreenkomstig gekriminaliseer behoort te word. Vergrype met betrekking tot homoseksualiteit en nasionaliteit wat tans in Suid-Afrika voorkom, stel sodanige omstandighede daar. Hierdie benadering is in ooreenstemming met Suid-Afrika se verpligtinge ingevolge internasionale ooreenkomste. Artikel 10 van die Wet op die Bevordering van Gelykheid en Voorkoming van Onbillike Diskriminasie verbied kategories 'n eng gedefinieerde veld van uitdrukking, insluitend uitdrukking ingevolge artikel 16(2)(c) van die Grondwet. Die verbod kriminaliseer nie uitdrukking nie en is nie op bona fide uitdrukking gestipuleer ingevolge artikel 16(1) van die Grondwet van toepassing nie. Binne die beperkte oorblywende veld verbied die artikel uitdrukking gebaseer op enige verbode grond wat redelikerwys verstaan kan word as weerspieëlend van 'n duidelike bedoeling om leed aan te doen, die aandoening van leed aan te hits, of haat te propageer. Die verbod sal grondwetlik wees indien aanvaar kan word dat die uitdrukking in alle omstandighede onbillike diskriminasie daar sal stel of sal bevorder. Oorwegings in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks van die waardes wat die beskerming sowel as die beperking van uitdrukking inspireer, en van internasionale verpligtinge, lei tot 'n positiewe gevolgtrekking in hierdie verband. Van wesenlike belang is die feit dat die verbod nie debat oor onderwerpe van belang stuit nie, selfs indien stellings wat relevant is vir die debat individue op die basis van hulle groepsidentiteit aanstoot gee. Artikel 6 van die Wet verbied diskriminasie onderhewig aan 'n billikheidsanalise. Dit is dikwels nie moontlik om te bepaal of diskriminerende uitdrukking in die breë samelewingskonteks inderdaad 'n nadelige effek het nie. In die media-konteks versterk die ongelyke magsbalans in gegewe omstandighede die risiko dat ongelykheid bevorder sal word. By die bepaling van billikheid behoort sorg gedra te word dat uitdrukking nie beperk sal word indien daar nie voldoende aanduidings van benadeling bestaan nie. Terselfdertyd mag die verpligting om onbillike diskriminasie te verbied, asook die kategoriese beperking ingevolge artikel 10, nie geїgnoreer word nie. In die lig van artikel 192 van die Grondwet is hierdie oorwegings van besondere belang met betrekking tot die uitsaaiwese. Die uitsaaikodes wat tans van toepassing is, bevat nie die nodige riglyne in hierdie verband nie, en behoort dienooreenkomstig gewysig te word. | af |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1397 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Thesis (LL.D. (Constitutional Law and Philosophy of Law))--University of the Free State, 2014 | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Freedom of speech | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Hate speech | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Constitutional law | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Group identity | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Unfair discrimination | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Incitement | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Hatred | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Harm | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Hate speech | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Freedom of expression | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Equality | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Discriminatory speech | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dignity | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Democracy | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Autonomy | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Advocacy | en_ZA |
| dc.title | The constitutionality of categorical and conditional restrictions on harmful expression related to group identity | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_ZA |