| Film and Publication Board | |
| Type: | Film ratings, censorship, online regulation |
| Headquarters: | Centurion, Gauteng South Africa |
| Budget: | 2022/23[1] |
| Minister1 Name: | Mondli Gungubele |
| Minister1 Pfo: | Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies |
| Chief1 Name: | Zamantungwa Mkosi |
| Chief1 Position: | Chairperson |
| Parent Department: | Department of Communications and Digital Technologies |
| Keydocument1: | Films and Publications Act, 1996 |
| Map: | |
The Film and Publication Board (FPB; stylised in all lowercase) is a content-classification and regulation authority in South Africa, operating under the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies. The FPB was established in 1996[2] under the Films and Publications Act, ostensibly to tackle issues of child pornography and child abuse, as well as to provide ratings to publicly consumed media such as movies, music and television programs. Under these directives, its mandate can be considered one of state censorship.
The Film and Publication Board was established directly under the directive set out in the Films and Publications Act of 1996, shortly after South Africa achieved independence from apartheid rule. The Board's function would be to receive complaints, or applications to evaluate a film or publication, and classify it according to its suitability for different audiences. These publications could include movies, television programs, computer games, and music.
The classification of a film or publication would trigger various prohibitions on possessing, exhibiting, distributing or advertising the film or publication. Different ratings were devised, the most serious of which was "X18", which prohibited anyone without a specific licence from distributing the content, which had to be conducted within "adult premises".
Certain key exemptions from prohibitions were made to the scientific community (in regard to bona fide scientific, documentary, dramatic, artistic, literary or religious films and publications), and the media (in that those holding a broadcasting licence were exempt from the duty to apply for classification).
An appeals process was also defined under the Act, allowing rulings made by the FPB to be contested and challenged.
On 3 March 2020, Netflix agreed to obey the FPB's classification rules in the distribution of content in South Africa.[3]
The FPB has the following rating guideline:
| Icon | Rating | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | All ages allowed (not used on video games). | ||
| PG | All ages allowed, but some parental guidance is recommended for younger or sensitive viewers | ||
| 7-9 PG | Material is not suitable for children under 7, but a caregiver or parent may decide if children between 7 and 9 years old may access the material (used only for films and games). | ||
| 10-12 PG | Material is not suitable for children under 10, but a caregiver or parent may decide if children between 10 and 12 years old may access the material (used only for films and games). | ||
| 13 | Not suitable for persons under the age of 13. | ||
| 16 | Not suitable for persons under the age of 16. | ||
| 18 | Not suitable for persons under the age of 18. | ||
| X18 | Adults only. Only licensed, adults-only designated businesses may distribute this content, and never to minors. X18 content may not be broadcast on public media such as television or radio. | ||
| XX | Cannot be legally sold, rented or exhibited anywhere in South Africa. The FPB has the authority to classify any content as XX if it contains extreme violence, cruelty, extreme sexual violence, bestiality, incest etc... | ||
| refused classification | Banned. It includes child pornography, incitement to hatred against people of an identifiable group etc... |
Former ratings include:
Additionally, the FPB provides the following content classifications:[4] [5]
| Icon | Rating | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| B | Blasphemy | "insensitive, demeaning, derogatory,disrespectful, or irreverent expressions about any religion" that are not considered hate speech | |
| CI | Competitive Intensity | the degree to which a player gets personally involved, and the level of excitement created in the players as they engage with the various game levels in order to gain incentives and rewards | |
| CT | Criminal Techniques | instructional details of illegal and dangerous acts that may be life-threatening and that are detailed enough to be re-enacted or self-instructional | |
| D | Drugs | scenes of substance (drugs and alcohol) abuse | |
| H | Horror | scenes of horror | |
| IAT | Imitative Acts or Techniques | dangerous acts or techniques that may be copied or imitated, especially by children | |
| L | Language | use of bad language | |
| LFN | Low frequency noise | noise below a frequency of 100 to 150 hertz | |
| N | Nudity | scenes involving nudity | |
| P | Prejudice | scenes or language that is biased or prejudiced with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other identifiable group characteristics | |
| PPS | Photo Pattern Sensitivity | motion sickness and reactions to low frequency sound | |
| S | Sex | scenes involving sex, sexual conduct or sexually-related activity | |
| SV | Sexual Violence | scenes involving sexual violence | |
| V | Violence | physical and psychological violent scenes | |
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.
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:
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]