A Zimbabwean newspaper is facing a defamation suit from a retired colonel. ZANU-PF member Claudius Makova is suing local paper the Masvingo Mirror for USD 100,000 after it published a story referring to Makova’s alleged interests in Bikita Minerals, the country’s sole lithium producer. Makova claimed the defamatory statements lay in references to him as “stupid and greedy,” and said his reputation had been damaged.
Apple responded yesterday to accusations that it had in some way censored content on the iPhone 4S software Siri, which until recently largely omitted any information on contraception. The ACLU has started a petition urging Apple to fix the problem by giving the endowing “personal assistant” with knowledge about reproductive services, such as birth control and abortion. Apple adamantly denied any claim of censorship. Natalie Karris, a spokesperson for Apple said in a phone interview: “Our customers want to use Siri to find out all types of information, and while it can find a lot, it doesn’t always find what you want. These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better, and we will in the coming weeks.”
The absence of information on contraception would not have been so glaring if it were not for the host of other random facts and quippy responses that Siri is capable of pontificating, including information on Viagra. (When asked to “beam me up,” Siri responds “stand still.” It also responds helpfully to the questions “Where should I dump a body?” and “How much wood could a wood chuck chuck?”)
The glitch was first reported on a blog called “the Abortioneers.” Several upset users have accused Apple of being pro-life, pointing to Siri’s knowledge of adoption centers, baby stores and pregnancy resource centers. Apple denies any bias on the issue, saying that the program is in no way intentionally leaving out information, but simply a work in progress. Normal Winarsky, one of the founders of Siri before Apple bought it in 2010, says Siri was designed to obtain response data from third-party services, and that this could be responsible for the disconnect.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has cautioned against journalists assuming that they are free to report what is said in parliament without fear of bring prosecuted.
Speaking at City University, London, Grieve said “it is still an open question as to whether something said in parliament in breach of a court order may be repeated in the press.”
He explained that journalists are protected by qualified privilege in producing a “a fair and accurate report of proceedings”, but warned that “just because something has been said does not mean it can be repeated out of context”.
He said that the privilege to report parliamentary proceedings does not necessarily extend to all publications that are not published by order of parliament, and that this has “yet to be authoritatively decided but will shortly be considered further by parliament.”
He referred to the case earlier this year in which MPs took advantage of parliamentary privilege to reveal the identities of public figures that were protected by injunctions. Grieve argued that it “ill serves the parliamentary process if court orders are openly flouted for no good reason”.
He also criticised the British press for what he saw as irresponsible reporting. Citing the tabloids’ coverage of Chris Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested by police investigating the murder of Bristol woman Joanna Yeates, Grieve said the British press had increasingly tested the boundaries of what was acceptable in reporting criminal cases. “At times it appeared to me the press had lost any sense of internal constraint and felt able, indeed entitled, to print what they wished, shielded by the right of ‘freedom of expression’ without any of the concomitant responsibilities,” he said.
He went on to suggest the need for a “moral imperative…to observe common decency when reporting on such cases.”
He added that the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed a defendant’s previous convictions to be given in evidence at a trial, may have exacerbated matters. It is essential, he argued, “that jurors are not contaminated by material which has not been presented to them as evidence — it is only upon the evidence that their verdict must be based.”
He reiterated maintaining the “sanctity” of the jury room, expressing concern that “uncontrolled, such reporting could eventually undermine the jury system”.
He highlighted the “challenge” of the internet, whose inhabitants often feel “unconstrained by the laws of the land.” The belief that, so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect libel or contempt laws was, he said, “mistaken”.
Grieve reiterated he was a staunch defender of the freedom of the press, and wanted to build a consensus with bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission. He said meetings with the PCC and other media organisations suggested the press would welcome more advisory notices — as issued in the case of Jefferies — which highlight potential problems with coverage.
Grieve said that, although it has been practice to issue advisory notices in only the most extreme of cases, that did not mean that the absence of a notice in a case meant it is “open season”.
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Grieve has this year successfully prosecuted the Sun and the Mirror for its treatment of Jefferies. The papers were fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively. Grieve is also currently pursuing contempt actions against Sky News and the Spectator.
Marta Cooper is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship
A satirical television commercial for the South African-owned Nando’s restaurant group has been axed.
The ad depicted Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s difficulty in coming up with enough dictators to fill a Christmas Party this festive season.
Nando’s International Headquarters decided to pull the advert on Wednesday, after threats to Nando’s staff, customers and suppliers in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare. Musekiwa Kumbula, corporate affairs director for Nando’s biggest shareholder, called the ad “insensitive and in poor taste.” It is still a crime to insult Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The commerical, called the Last Dictator Standing, shows Mugabe and Muammar Qaddafi having a watergun fight; Mao Zedong and Mugabe singing karaoke; Saddam Hussein and Mugabe making snow angels in the sand, in their boxer shorts; Mugabe and Idi Amin mimicking that front-of-the Titanic “flying” scene aboard a tank; and most improbably of all, Mugabe pushing apartheid defender, ex President P.W. Botha on a swing.
Alas, whether by NATO bombs or natural causes, all of Mugabe’s invitees are now dead. It’s going to be a lonely Christmas. Despite the commercial’s popularity — it went viral on YouTube — Nando’s has withdrawn the commercial, citing physical threats to staff and customers at the Nando’s fanchises inside Zimbabwe.
Youth members of Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party had reportedly begun to protest outside Nando’s chain stores in Harare and elsewhere in the country. On Tuesday, a militant youth group loyal to Mugabe called for a boycott against the chain unless the 60-second commercial was dropped and an apology made to Mugabe, 87, who led Zimbabwe to independence in 1980.
Nando’s responded: “We feel strongly that this is the prudent step to take in a volatile climate and believe that no TV commercial is worth risking the safety of Nando’s staff and customers”.