Peter Smulik vs. The Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the opinion piece in dispute read, Your wisdom sucks, old people (published on 24 February 2016).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

With reference to the recent student protests on campuses throughout South Africa, the author argued that the struggle for “decolonization” was compromised by the older (black) generation who clung to “respectability politics”. She opined that the older generation were losing the little moral authority that they had. “Very soon we will not be willing to listen to them anymore.”

Peter Smulik complained that the opinion piece had been written with the intent to raise tempers, and to incite violence and mob rule by young “revolutionaries”, without considering the opinions of the majority. The views expressed were “inflammatory” and “unconstitutional” – which, he said, were beyond the boundaries of freedom of expression.

The newspaper offered Smulik a right of reply, which he rejected. The latter argued that the opinion piece contained.

Retief said Smulik was correct in one respect (and in one respect only) – neither the Constitution nor the Press Council’s Code of Ethics and Conduct allowed the publication of hate speech.

Dismissing the complaint, he said the piece did not contain hate speech and argued that the author had all the right in the world to state her case. “It would be a catastrophic day for this country’s democracy if anybody – whether an editor or this office – disallows, on principle, the publication of such opinions. May the robustness of the debate continue for as long as we live,” he concluded.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Peter Smulik and those of Dominic Mahlangu, editor of The Times newspaper.

Complaint

Smulik is complaining about an opinion article in The Times of 24 February 2016, headlined Your wisdom sucks, old people – Our parents are not willing to listen to us and that is why we are in the mess we are in.

He complains the article was written with the intent to raise tempers, and to incite violence and mob rule by young “revolutionaries”, without considering the opinions of the majority. He calls the views expressed in the text inflammatory and unconstitutional – which, he says, falls beyond the boundaries of freedom of expression.

The text

With reference to the recent student protests on campuses throughout South Africa, Panashe Chigumadzi argues that their struggle for “decolonization” is compromised by the older (black) generation who clings to “respectability politics”.

She ends off by stating, “Having, as things stand, where ‘our parents’, the generation of black intellectual leaders, continue to fail us by choosing respectability politics and race transcendence over the pressing demands of decolonization, that interest is no longer as keen. They are losing the little moral authority that they had. Very soon we will not be willing to listen to them anymore.”

Analysis

Mahlangu responds that the article was published on an opinion page – a public platform – and says that it reflected the writer’s view. He offers Smulik a right of reply.

Smulik rejects this offer. He also takes umbrage to the editor’s argument – as if views published on an opinion page gave the newspaper the right  to carry just any kind of opinion, including hate speech and defamation. He argues that this office should prevent such speech.

My considerations

Smulik is correct in one respect (and in one respect only) – neither the Constitution nor the Press Council’s Code of Ethics and Conduct allows the publication of hate speech.

Having that said, Chigumadzi’s views are in no way inflammatory and are not even bordering on hate speech. She had all the right in the world to state her case which, by the way, I find quite informative, interesting and refreshing.

It would be a catastrophic day for this country’s democracy if anybody – whether an editor or this office – disallows, on principle, the publication of such opinions.

May the robustness of the debate continue for as long as we live.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombudsman