The Department of Communications’ move to have online content classified is riddled with inconsistencies that will severely hamper the implementation of the still-to-be-gazetted Films and Publications Amendment Bill 2015.

The amendments to the Films and Publications Act, no 65 of 1996, aimed to protect children from being exposed to “disturbing and harmful” media content across every platform, including the Internet and social media.

The scope of the proposed Bill would allow the Film and Publications Board (FPB) to extend the classification of publications, films and games to all online content, meaning that no digital film or digital game may be distributed unless it had been classified, with clear indications of the age limit and the nature of content.

“It is [like] closing the barn door after the horse has bolted,” said Internet Service Providers’ Association (Ispa) treasurer Mike Silber, pointing to the ever-increasing popularity of the Internet as a video-sharing platform with millions of hours of unchecked content streamed or downloaded each day.

While the amended Bill could deliver some positive changes, the scope of implementation was well out of the reach of the resources and capacity of South Africa, warned Ispa regulatory adviser Dominic Cull.

He explained that the majority of the content the FPB wanted to regulate was distributors, peer-to-peer, social media and video websites such as YouTube, besides others.

“How are they going to control that?” he questioned.

Distributors were defined by the Act as any person or company that sold, hired out or exhibited films online and off.

The Act stated that increasing demand for online content and technological advances required focus to extend beyond the classification and monitoring of activities on physical platforms to the regulation of content on the diverse digital and social media platforms.

“In this regard, it is necessary for the applicable legislation, policies and procedures to reflect these demands and technological advances,” it said.