• All Share : 51603.9332
    DOWN -1.36%
    Top40 - (Tradeable) : 45467.3933
    DOWN -1.55%
    Financial 15 : 17009.8766
    DOWN -1.37%
    Industrial 25 : 64103.6481
    DOWN -1.64%
    Resource 10 : 42413.2401
    DOWN -1.18%

  • ZAR/USD : 12.0127
    UP 0.13%
    ZAR/GBP : 17.7634
    DOWN -0.08%
    ZAR/EUR : 13.0425
    UP 0.02%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1001
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.3545
    DOWN -0.37%

  • Gold US$/oz : 1204.02
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Platinum US$/oz : 1153.38
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Silver US$/oz : 17.09
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Palladium US$/oz : 770.25
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Brent Crude : 58.92
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by Profile Data
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Fri Mar 27 08:57:51 SAST 2015

'Spear' appeal lodged with censors

Sapa | 11 July, 2012 15:54
"The Spear" defaced. File photo.
Image by: Elizabeth Sejake

An appeal by the Goodman Gallery against the classification of "The Spear" painting has been received, the Film and Publications Board (FPB) said on Wednesday.

"The FPB confirms that the appeal was lodged in compliance with the set procedure and within the time period stipulated in section 20 of the Films & Publications Act 65 of 1996," spokesman Prince Mlimandlela Ndamase said in a statement.

The FPB forwarded copies of the pertinent documents and the final classification report to the Appeal Tribunal, and was now awaiting a response from the Tribunal as to the time, date and venue for the appeal.

Last month, the classification committee of the Film and Publications Board (FBP) gave artist Brett Murray's painting, which depicts President Jacob Zuma with exposed genitals, a 16N rating.

This means children under the age of 16 should not have access to the artwork, because it displays nudity.

The FPB also ruled that its classification committee had the necessary jurisdiction to classify the painting, even though it had been defaced.

On Tuesday, Goodman Gallery spokeswoman Lara Koseff said the committee had "erred in concluding that a 16N classification was appropriate".

It failed to adequately take into account that the image was published largely on the internet, and the guidelines on classification did not deal with the problems of classifying online.

It had also not given sufficient regard to the constitutionally protected freedom of expression of the artist.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.