By Henry Maina

The recent proclamation that the Film Classification Board and Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) would develop a classification system for films and videos and watershed for broadcasts is commendable, more so if it underscores three fundamentals issues.

First, it must make clear that the State will not tell Kenyans what to watch as that may amount to censorship. Second, it should protect the cardinal duty of parents to decide what their children can watch and when. Third, the two regulatory bodies should be made more independent and be the enforcing agents.

Whereas protection of public morality, health and security is a legitimate ground for limiting the right to freedom of expression in international law, it is often a slippery and dangerous ground for policy developers and must be left to the courts or the Media Council to examine complaints for violations of professional ethics. This is true for two reasons.

First, the question of obscenity is a difficult one given that different societies have divergent views on such matters. This begs the question as to who we may permit to set the moral standards for all of us. Two, what may be considered obscene in society keeps shifting with exposure and modernisation. Definitive rules stating what may not be broadcast might become outdated after a short time.

However, there is global consensus on the need to protect children from broadcast of harmful material—not only sexual matters, buts things related to dangerous drugs, alcohol and materials that they may find inordinately frightening. Even for the courts to arrive at a decision they must be informed by some objective reasons.

They, for instance, must examine what an average Kenyan would consider in a film, video or book as offensive and whether the product has any serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value.

It is thus incumbent upon the CCK to develop the watershed. That is, the time it is assumed children will not be watching television or listening to the radio. These guidelines will clarify to broadcasters what ought to be shown or aired before and after the watershed.

What may also be permissible on breakfast shows and evening shows will be made clear. Notice I use the word "assumed" because ultimately it is the duty of parents and guardians to ensure that children are not exposed to "unwanted" programmes.

The discussion on obscenity policy must be informed by the international standard that there should be no absolute proscriptions on what may be shown on television other than the general standards of legality.

Any breach of the watershed should be reported to the Media Council on the one hand, and persistent breaches should form part of the reasons for non-renewal of broadcasting licenses. The codes should not be enforced by the act of pre-broadcast censorship.

—The writer is the Director of Article 19 Kenya & Eastern Africa. henrymaina@hotmail.com