INTRODUCTION

Newzroom Afrika is a news channel that broadcasts its content on Multichoice Channel 405. It also operates an Online Content Service in the form of its YouTube channel^[1]. Newzroom Afrika’s YouTube channel was created on 17 January 2019. It has 344 000 subscribers, 48 518 videos, and has received 156 110 325 views. Newzroom Afrika has editorial control over its YouTube channel. Its primary purpose is to provide video content to the public via the internet. It is the place of record for Newzroom Afrika’s videos, which is evidenced by the vast number of videos that it provides on that platform.

CENSORED INTERVIEW

On 26 January 2024, advocate Mark Oppenheimer was interviewed by Masa Kekana on Newzroom Afrika to discuss the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the case between South Africa and Israel. Advocate Oppenheimer expressed the view that the judgment did not have the effect of creating a ceasefire and that South Africa had not achieved a substantial legal victory. The interview was posted onto Newzroom Afrika’s YouTube page under the title: ICJ Israel-Gaza ruling is hollow - Oppenheimer. Later that day the video was removed.^[2]

Advocate Oppenheimer has been a practicing advocate and member of the Johannesburg Bar for 15 years. He is a frequent commentator on legal issues on South African radio and television. On the ICJ issue he has appeared on SABC News^[3], Kyknet^[4], SAFM^[5], Radio 702^[6], Chai FM^[7], and Cliff Central^[8]. No other broadcaster has censored him.

I, Mark Hyman, personally viewed the interview with advocate Oppenheimer. The source of my complaint is that removing his interview from Newzroom Afrika’s Online Content Service is an act of censorship that constitutes a breach of Newzroom Afrika’s obligations in terms of S9 and S11 of the BCCSA’s code of conduct for online content services for licensed broadcasters.

OTHER INTERVIEWS

On the same day Newzroom Africa displayed the following videos on its YouTube page: Capetonians welcome ICJ ruling^[9], Ramaphosa says ICJ ruling vindicated SA^[10], Israel likely to face more legal action - Neiman^[11], MacManus's views on ICJ's Israel-Gaza ruling^[12], ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza^[13], Prof. Strydom on ICJ Israel-Gaza case ruling^[14], Reactions to ICJ ruling on Israel-Gaza conflict^[15], ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza^[16], SA made a mark with ICJ case against Israel - Mbalula^[17]. These videos are all overwhelming critical of Israel.

TRANSCRIPT OF CENSORED INTERVIEW

The following is a complete transcript of the interview with advocate Oppenheimer:

Masa Kekana: Now joining us is Advocate Mark Oppenheimer, advocate and member of the Johannesburg Bar. Mark, thank you so much for your time. You had previously said that South Africa taking Israel to the ICJ is the worst decision.

Following this afternoon's outcomes coming from The Hague, do you stand by that stance?

Mark Oppenheimer: Yes, well, I suppose the first thing to be noted is that the primary relief sought by South Africa, which was to order Israel to stop its military engagement in Gaza, that relief was not granted. I think because the court recognizes implicitly that Israel has a right to defend itself and defend its citizens from Hamas.

Furthermore, you'll note that the court's judgment started off by acknowledging the horrors committed by Hamas on October 7th and talks about the abduction of the hundreds of hostages and the killing of innocent civilians, and of course concludes by saying that Hamas has an obligation to release all of those hostages without any conditions.

So there is a sense in which some of Israel's claims have been vindicated through this litigation.

Masa Kekana: When you're taking a look at some of the quotes that were coming out of the court this afternoon by, on both ends, you know, what did you make of that as well to say that, you know, some of the ministers, the prime minister's remarks as well, some of the president's remarks as well, and of course, the minister of defence in Israel, what did you make of those quotes that were being used?

Mark Oppenheimer: Yes, it's worth looking at the difference between the quote by Gallant, the Minister of Defence, that was read out by the court and the one that was produced by South Africa. The court correctly points out that Hamas is sought to be eradicated. This was a line that was left out by South Africa. It's quite clear from the statements by Benjamin, Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel's goal is to eradicate Hamas, the terror group, that Palestine should be free from Hamas and that all civilian life is sacred.

If we look at the actual relief that's granted by the court. Really, it's a reminder to Israel to abide by the obligations in terms of the genocide convention in terms of how it conducts its continuing battles against Hamas.

Masa Kekana: What does that look like? What do we see? Because this is not a complete and categoric ceasefire.

This is to prevent acts of genocide. Israel has maintained that they don't believe that these are acts of genocide. So then how does that become implemented?

Mark Oppenheimer: Yes. So I mean, first of all, there is no mention of a ceasefire at all. So that is relief that the courts refused to entertain. It's implicit that Israel will continue its military engagements in Gaza, and really, this is to regulate its conduct. One of the methods to ensure that it does abide by its treaty obligations is to produce that report within a month. Now it's worth bearing in mind, of course, that South Africa brought this litigation in a strategic manner. Which was it ambushed Israel by bringing its application on the 29th of December, when most reasonable people are on the beach, and asked for a hearing within the first week of January.

So, Israel's ability to defend itself in court obviously was hindered by this. And so, this report opportunity would give Israel an opportunity to explain all the measures that it takes to prevent the loss of civilian lives, for example, creating humanitarian corridors, warning civilians before it bombs buildings, ensuring that aid trucks are able to enter.

So, I imagine that we'll see much of that in that report that comes.

Masa Kekana: All right. Thank you so much for your time. That's advocate Mark Oppenheimer, advocate for the member of the Johannesburg Bar. We're going to take you live now to remarks by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Okay, before we go back there, I still have Zianda Ngobo in studio. Let's unpack some of this reaction that we've been hearing. We just heard advocate Mark Oppenheimer.

THE CODE

Definitions

“Online Content Service” means an on-demand streaming or downloading service provided by a Signatory, who is a broadcasting service licensed by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, which-

a) is under the Signatory’s editorial control;

b) has the primary purpose of providing audio and /or video content, and which has similar characteristics to traditional broadcasting,

c) is provided to the public or sections of the public, and

d) is delivered to the end user of an online delivery medium, including the internet but does not include Social Media content or User Generated Content.

9. News

9.1. News must be reported truthfully, accurately and fairly.

9.2. News must be presented in the correct context and in a fair manner, without intentional or negligent departure from the facts, whether by:

9.2.1. Distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation;

9.2.2. Material omissions; or

9.2.3. Summarisation.

11. Controversial Issues of Public Importance

11.1. In making available Online Content in which a controversial issue of public importance is discussed, a Signatory must make reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of view either in the same Online Content or in other, related Online

Content.

11.2. A person whose views are to be criticised in Online Content concerning a controversial issue of public importance must be given the right to reply to such criticism in the same or in related Online Content.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

The censorship of advocate Oppenheimer’s interview was unfair and unbalanced. It constitutes a material omission in that it removes from consideration a substantial view on the effect of the ICJ ruling. Therefore, the removal constitutes a breach of S9 of the code.

The interview with advocate Oppenheimer was on a controversial issue of public importance. The removal of the interview from Newzroom Afrika’s YouTube channel, while airing a series of interviews and video that were all hostile to Israel, resulted in Newzroom Afrika failing to take reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of view. A reasonable broadcaster would not have removed the interview from their Online Content Service.

Both breaches demonstrate that Newzroom Afrika has a biased view on the ICJ ruling and the Israel Gaza conflict.

RELIEF

I seek the following relief against Newzroom Afrika.

1. That the interview with Advocate Oppenheimer be republished on Newzroom Afrika’s YouTube channel.
2. That Newzroom Afrika broadcast an explanation for why the original interview was removed. Such a broadcast must also be made available on its YouTube channel.
3. That Newzroom Afrika broadcast an apology for removing the original interview. Such a broadcast must also be made available on its YouTube channel.
4. That Newzroom Afrika be ordered to pay a fine in the sum of R100 000 to the BCCSA.

Contact Details

Name: Mark Hyman