Freedom of expression is one of the most important rights protected under the Constitution. It is as a pre-condition of the enjoyment of all other rights (except, may be the right to life). The right of freedom of expression is the mouthpiece of all other rights, without which all other rights are as good as dead. Freedom of expression has been found to be of importance for several reasons:- the search for truth rationale; the political process rationale; individual self-fulfilment. Despite its resonance, freedom of expression is not absolute in South Africa. It is limited by other equally important fundamental rights contained in the Constitutional document, such as the right to equality, dignity and privacy. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa makes it clear that some forms of expression that have racial connotations are not worthy of Constitutional protection 'from the word go'. These types of expression have the potential to debase the foundations upon which our constitution is premised. They show total disregard to the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights. / Thesis (LLM) North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, 2004

Freedom of expression is one of the most important rights protected under the Constitution. It is as a pre-condition of the enjoyment of all other rights (except, may be the right to life). The right of freedom of expression is the mouthpiece of all other rights, without which all other rights are as good as dead. Freedom of expression has been found to be of importance for several reasons :- the search for truth rationale; the political process rationale; individual self-fulfilment. Despite its resonance, freedom of expression is not absolute in South Africa. It is limited by other equally important fundamental rights contained in the Constitutional document, such as the right to equality, dignity and privacy. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa makes it clear that some forms of expression that have racial connotations are not worthy of Constitutional protection 'from the word go'. These types of expression have the potential to debase the foundations upon which our constitution is premised. They show total disregard to the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights. / (LLM) North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, 2004

This thesis unites law and social science so as to give a comprehensive account of the phenomenon of racial hate speech in South Africa as an obstacle to transformation. Hate speech is presented as a form of violent language and an affront to the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, equality and dignity. To establish the nature of hate speech, the fluid quality of language is explored so as to show how language can be manipulated, on the one hand, as a means to harm, and employed, on the other hand, as a tool to heal and reconcile. This double gesture is illustrated through the South African linguistic experience of past hate and segregation and the current transformation agenda. It is through this prism that hate speech regulation is discussed as an uneasy fit in a country where freedom of expression is constitutionally protected and where language plays an important role in bringing about reconciliation, and yet words are still being employed to divide and dehumanise. This reality necessitates a clearly articulated stance on the regulation of language. The thesis accordingly interrogates the current legal standards in relation to hate speech with reference to international law that binds South Africa and the constitutional standard set for the regulation of language and the prohibition of hate speech. Thereafter, the current and proposed legislative prohibitions on hate speech, the residual common law provisions governing expression and the regulation of language in the media are outlined and analysed. These legal frameworks are explored in terms of their content and their application in various fora so as to ascertain what the South African approach to hate speech prohibition is, whether it is consistent and, ultimately if it is indeed suitable to the South African experience and the realities of language. This thesis concludes that contemporary hate speech measures lack a coherent understanding of what hate speech entails and a general inconsistency in approach as well as application is found in the treatment of hate speech complaints in South Africa. This is explained through the fallibility of language as a medium to regulate expression and solutions are offered to not only taper current and proposed hate speech provisions but to also consider alternative forms of resolving hate speech complaints

Hate speech in South Africa creates a tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to human dignity and equality. The challenge is to achieve a balance between these competing rights in the context of the divisive past and the transformative constitutional ideal, in which reconciliation and respect for group difference are promoted. Freedom of expression, an individual right, must be construed in light of its underlying values, but regard must also be given to communitarian interests. The constitutional standard draws the initial line. The advocacy of hatred on four grounds and which constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected speech. Such speech undermines nation building, causes acrimony, and is not tolerated in the egalitarian society envisaged by the Constitution. The thesis formulates a principled legislative hate speech framework for South Africa at both human rights and criminal levels within the parameters of the constitutional mandate, as guided by the standard for hate speech restrictions in international law, and the Canadian regulatory model. An essential premise is that regulation requires a multi-faceted balancing enquiry. A holistic approach is proposed where factors such as respect for the dignity of the victims, autonomy for speakers, listeners and the wider community; the causal link between hate speech and hatred in a community; and the desire to achieve a diverse and harmonious society; amongst others, are considered. Failure to regulate hate speech constructively endorses hatemongers and promotes damaging speech at the expense of vulnerable groups. Regulation ensures that law sets the normative benchmark, affirms the protection of vulnerable groups within the social fabric and upholds social cohesion, inclusiveness and the equal citizenship of all individuals in society. The thesis contains a proposal for the enactment of legislation creating a self-standing hate speech crime for the advocacy of extreme hatred, shaped in accordance with international requirements and comparative foreign law, and structured in light of the distinction between hate crime and hate speech. The existing legal framework is unable to provide consistent and fitting redress for the severe harm caused by such speech, namely the fostering of an environment in which the stigmatisation of groups is promoted, their exclusion from society justified and intervention is needed to remedy the escalated levels of hatred and violence between different groups in society. PEPUDA, a remedial statute aimed at promoting transformation and substantive equality, is valuable, but its speech prohibitions are broad and imprecise. Consequently, their effectiveness is compromised and their constitutionality questioned. The thesis proposes recommendations for amendments to sections 7(a), 10(1) and 12 of PEPUDA. The aim is to ensure compliance with the international standard and to foster the optimal regulation of hate speech and other forms of damaging speech, including derogatory racial epithets, which undermine human dignity and equality and threaten national unity. It is intended for the two systems to complement one another and to create a legal framework aimed at addressing hate speech constructively and in context, promoting tolerance, respect for difference, reconciliation and transformation.

Thesis ( M.A. ( Media Studies)) -- University of Limpopo, 2005 / It is currently generally recognized that freedom of expression 1s a fundamental human right. In South Africa this recognition was realized with the advent of the new democratic dispensation in 1994. Freedom of the press in South Africa came as no coincidence - there had been long and concerted efforts to fight apartheid and its in-ward facing media legislation. These concerted efforts culminated in the "Jabulani: Open Airwaves: conference held in the Nederlands in 1993. This landmark conference undeniably laid a solid foundation for the media freedom South Africa enjoys today. Many would argue that South Africa is now finally entrenched in the libertarian viewpoint of the press, while others feel that the media should be moving beyond libertarianism towards social responsibility. Based on these press theories, this study reveals that there is need to strike a balance between the two in South Africa in particular and in Africa in gene ral. It is shown how libertarian theories are a far cry from the authoritarian and nee-communist media theories utilized by the former apartheid regime. Re press ive South African media laws are well documented, but a brief historical overview is given in the study to show the depth and the media engineered by the state. It also points out the gaps in journalism training, both in the past and at present this focus reveals that journalists are an important kingpin in press freedom. Their training and ideological orientation can either promote diversity or throttle it. It is for this reason that this research study was undertaken to endeavour to elicit in forma tion about the state of journalism 1n selected newsrooms by developing a questionnaire that could be mailed or used in structured interviews The study has revealed that many newsrooms are now run by youthful journalists, of whom a large number have inadequate education and training. This has affected the quality of information both the public and private sectors are broadcasting. However, the study ahs shown that some of the reasons for this poor performance seems to lie in the recruitment structures of newsrooms. In addition, effective induction is not given on appointment. Many organisations rely on external training, otherwise it is sink or swim. The study finally recommends a sound basic education for journalists in all possible languages. While it is important that journalism training at tertiary institutions in South Africa should include practical skills and standard training to enhance contextual knowledge in journalism programmes.

This study investigates the interaction between freedom and limitation as applied to political expression and hate speech. The need for the limitation of hate speech, with its inherent risk of escalation into other serious crimes such as genocide, is established. The view of the South African courts is identified as pro-limitation but generally respectful of the right to freedom of expression. A lacuna in current constitutional law, common law and legislative remedies is evident and the various ways in which limitation can be effected are explored; the researcher finds for criminalisation as an effective measure to address this lacuna in hate speech regulation. The importance of complying with the international call for the criminalisation of hate speech is analysed. Insight is gained regarding what would be an effective model for criminalisation. Here lessons are taken from foreign comparatives that have successfully criminalised hate speech in the context of their cultural identity, history and social needs. Ultimately, a framework for effective hate speech criminalisation in South Africa is formulated. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.M

This study investigates the interaction between freedom and limitation as applied to political expression and hate speech. The need for the limitation of hate speech, with its inherent risk of escalation into other serious crimes such as genocide, is established. The view of the South African courts is identified as pro-limitation but generally respectful of the right to freedom of expression. A lacuna in current constitutional law, common law and legislative remedies is evident and the various ways in which limitation can be effected are explored; the researcher finds for criminalisation as an effective measure to address this lacuna in hate speech regulation. The importance of complying with the international call for the criminalisation of hate speech is analysed. Insight is gained regarding what would be an effective model for criminalisation. Here lessons are taken from foreign comparatives that have successfully criminalised hate speech in the context of their cultural identity, history and social needs. Ultimately, a framework for effective hate speech criminalisation in South Africa is formulated. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.M