The relationship between the state and independent media seems to have soured since the enactment of the law, which is seen by critics as an attempt to stifle media freedom through censorship.
Analysts were also incensed by reports that the Act will force journalists to reveal their sources - a typical trend in many parts of Africa, where a huge number of journalists continue to be assassinated, tortured and indefinitely detained for simply telling the truth.
However, in an exclusive interview in Houghton, Johannesburg, Makhasi said it was a question of misunderstanding and misinterpretation that led to people making a lot of unnecessary noise around the Act.
“I want to emphasise here that we are a classification authority which doesn't engage in censorship of any kind and we don't interfere with content that goes into the media,” she said.
“Censorship involves the control of what others may see or read, while classification involves the regulation of films and publications by means of imposition of age restrictions and provision of information on the basis of which choices about what to see or read may be made.
“Our job consists of ensuring that content is free from classifiable elements such as nudity, sex, prejudice, derogatory language and propaganda for war and this is what publishers do not want us to do.”
Makhasi also said it was not clear where the argument that the Act may lead to journalists revealing their sources emanates from, as no such provision exists in the legislation.
“I challenge all those who say these nasty things to come forward with solid arguments and tangible proof. This is simply the highest form of sensationalism which is unnecessary and uncalled for, as it seeks to divert attention from real issues that we as the country and society have to deal with,” she said, fuming.
Some observers believe the media's unfounded fear may have been fomented by South Africa's ‘rich history' of censorship, which dates since the 19th century.
SA has come a long way since the days of Obscene Publications Act of 1892, Censorship Act of 1931, Publications and Entertainment Act of 1963 and Publications Act of 1974.
Knowing the damage done by the state-controlled organisations in charge of enforcing these laws, some observers said it was morally understandable that the 10-year-old FPB, which is said to have succeeded these agencies, could be seen as the ‘new enemy in the new political dispensation'.
The present legislation has amended the Films and Publications Act of 1996, by inserting, amending and deleting certain definitions and strengthening the role of the board, among others.
Nevertheless, Makhasi conceded that the agency has not done enough to engage with the media community through various platforms (forums, conferences and workshops) to explain the Act's mission and objectives.
“We are looking forward to be doing that and engaging in partnerships in the near future to tell our side of the story, as to alleviate fears and restore trust.”
She called on small players, including independent community newspapers who are not part of the Press Ombudsman, to work engage with FPB to help develop a code of conduct to which they can commit, with clear penalties in case of non-adherence to the code.
“It is not our intention whatsoever to interfere with media freedom and put anybody out of business, but members of the public have the responsibility to complain to FPB should they bump into ‘undesirable' content, so that the agency can act on that basis.
“Publishers and film distributors can also appeal our decision to an Appeals Board that operates independently from us and the Department of Home Affairs,” she concluded.
For more information go to www.fpb.gov.za and www.fpbprochild.org.za.
