Johann Rupert vs Wallpaper*

[The Bigsleep J]

A few weeks ago many Afrikaans speaking South Africans received something akin to a slap in the face when a British decor magazine called Wallpaper* published an article on picnic sites in the Western Cape. In the Paarl valley, not far from Cape Town, stands the Afrikaans Language Monument constructed to mark the centeniary of Afrikaans being distinguished as a seperate language from Dutch. The monument, situated on a hill, has quite a spectacular view of the valley, the Paarl Mountain and in the distance Table Mountain. Wallpaper* however, had a photo of the monument with the offending caption stating something akin to "this monument by a famed architect, erected to the ugliest language on the earth, has at least some decent picnic spots."

Ugliest language on earth? I know that everyone has a right to their own oppinions, but what right does the editor of the magazine (who wrote the caption) have to make such a statement? Since when do decor magazine have the neccesary qualifications to pass linguistical judgements? By what do you judge a language as good or bad, especially if you probably don't really know it and seen how people can express themselves in it, sing songs, write poetry, worship God, and tell jokes? I'm probably over-reacting, but then again everyone can overeact when something you love is so downright insulted. Most people felt very insulted, most of all Johann Rupert.

Johann Rupert is the owner of a multi-national conglomerate and is South African. When he read the questionable caption in the magazine, he felt very angry and decided to pull millions of pounds worth of product advertising from Wallpaper*. Most people (myself included) praised the decision, but one critic of him did bring up a very interesting point. He stated that Rupert's decision was irresponsible since it was censorious - that is was much against freedom of the press. This is an interesting point of view to say the least.

What do you think?

[Karen]

If the editor was fired, or the government somehow closed down the magazine, *that* would be censorship. But freedom of the press doesn't seem to be an issue here at all - the magazine was perfectly free to publish the caption. Rupert wasn't censoring them, he was simply refusing to support them with his money, which, in a capitalist society, is a powerful way of expressing one's opinion (cf. in America the Montgomery bus boycott in the 1960s, or the grape boycott to support migrant farm workers in the 1970s).

[Steve]

I'm with Karen. A sponsor changing his mind about who he will advertise with is not censorship.

[The Bigsleep J]

Well, that's what some people's response to the statement was. One commentator who works for the newspaper that broke the story said that, considering how newspapers were censored in the 1980s, this was not really censorship. But still it sort of made me wonder who was right. Thanks for the replies.