Freedom To Print

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31448, 15 August 1967, Page 14

Freedom To Print

Press censorship may well be regarded as the last refuge of the despot. In South Africa, government resentment of criticism in the English-language newspapers is no new manifestation. For years it has been almost standard practice for Nationalist ministers to dismiss newspaper criticism which could not be effectively answered as part of a policy of systematic defamation. The charge of printing distorted reports, now repeated in strong terms by the Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, had in fact been expected. In June, two years after the event, charges of publishing false information were brought against four journalists. The charges related to reports of ill-treatment of prisoners in South African gaols, printed in the “ Rand Daily Mail The newspaper refused at the time to divulge the sources of its information; but two prison warders were later convicted of making false statements—according to their own admission—which were the basis of the reports complained of. The newspaper, refusing to be silenced by threats of court action, insisted that there was more than enough evidence to justify an inquiry into prison conditions. It said that all the State had done was to produce a number of its own witnesses to deny the charges made. The English-language newspapers work under the handicap of having official sources of information virtually closed to them, except in the case of supplied reports for which publicity might be sought for political reasons. A law of 1959 made it an offence to print any report about prisons, knowing it to be false or without taking reasonable steps to verify it. What “reasonable steps” might be is impossible to determine, since there would obviously be no verification of damaging statements from any official quarter. Now it seems clear that the Government is preparing to tighten the laws limiting press powers by seeking to compel newspapers to name their informants if required to do so.

This, as has quickly been pointed out, would be the last straw. If Mr Vorster can achieve what he appears to be contemplating, he will have destroyed almost the last vestige of newspaper freedom. His line of thought has been revealed too often for his motives to be misinterpreted at this stage. As recently as May 18, a journalist was gaoled for six weeks for contempt, in refusing to disclose sources of information concerning anti-semitism, arising out of clashes between German immigrants and young Jews in Johannesburg. Mr Vorster—possibly influenced by his own right-wing leanings—angrily accused the newspaper of fabrication.

South Africa’s English-language press has courageously opposed restrictive press legislation in the past, and will certainly resist the harsher regimentation that Mr Vorster appears to have in mind. He has already been answered, indeed, and in no uncertain terms, by most of the newspapers, indicating that, in spite of threats of retaliation they regard the duty to comment and report freely as obligatory. It is vital that they should carry on the fight If South Africa were to lose press freedom it would lose perhaps the last effective bulwark of national decency and justice.