CML1501
Assignment 2
Unique No:
Due 10 September 2025
, Communication Law
Question 1: The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI) – Exceptions in
obtaining children’s information
The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) places strict conditions on the
processing of personal information belonging to children, recognising them as a
vulnerable group. Section 35 generally prohibits such processing unless consent is
obtained from a competent person, such as a parent or legal guardian. However, the
Act also provides important exceptions. Children’s personal data may be processed
when it is necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defence of a legal right or
obligation. Another exception arises where the information is processed for historical,
statistical, or research purposes, provided that the use is in the public interest and does
not unfairly infringe on the privacy of the child. The Act also allows processing when
compliance with a legal duty is required, ensuring that statutory obligations are met.
Additionally, where information has been deliberately made public by the child, with the
consent of a competent person, further processing may be permitted. These exceptions
demonstrate that while children’s rights to privacy are strongly protected, the law also
accommodates legitimate circumstances where processing serves broader legal, social,
or public interest goals.
Question 2: Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and
the Film and Publication Board (2012)
In Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and the Film and
Publication Board (2012), the Constitutional Court evaluated whether certain provisions
of the Films and Publications Act unjustifiably limited freedom of expression. The
challenged sections—16, 16(2)(a), and 24A(2)(a)—required that publications containing
sexual content be submitted to the Film and Publication Board (FPB) for classification
before distribution. The Court held that this requirement amounted to prior restraint, a
serious interference with media freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Assignment 2
Unique No:
Due 10 September 2025
, Communication Law
Question 1: The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI) – Exceptions in
obtaining children’s information
The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) places strict conditions on the
processing of personal information belonging to children, recognising them as a
vulnerable group. Section 35 generally prohibits such processing unless consent is
obtained from a competent person, such as a parent or legal guardian. However, the
Act also provides important exceptions. Children’s personal data may be processed
when it is necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defence of a legal right or
obligation. Another exception arises where the information is processed for historical,
statistical, or research purposes, provided that the use is in the public interest and does
not unfairly infringe on the privacy of the child. The Act also allows processing when
compliance with a legal duty is required, ensuring that statutory obligations are met.
Additionally, where information has been deliberately made public by the child, with the
consent of a competent person, further processing may be permitted. These exceptions
demonstrate that while children’s rights to privacy are strongly protected, the law also
accommodates legitimate circumstances where processing serves broader legal, social,
or public interest goals.
Question 2: Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and
the Film and Publication Board (2012)
In Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and the Film and
Publication Board (2012), the Constitutional Court evaluated whether certain provisions
of the Films and Publications Act unjustifiably limited freedom of expression. The
challenged sections—16, 16(2)(a), and 24A(2)(a)—required that publications containing
sexual content be submitted to the Film and Publication Board (FPB) for classification
before distribution. The Court held that this requirement amounted to prior restraint, a
serious interference with media freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional.
