Overview
The
BBC
Editorial
Guidelines,
which
apply
to
all
BBC
content,
make
it
clear
that
we
have
no
intention
of
publishing
content
that
might
impair
in
any
way,
the
physical,
mental
or
moral
development
of
minors,
or
any
material
that
would
adversely
affect
other
vulnerable
people.
Nor
do
we
believe
that
any
illegal
pornographic
material
found
on
the
Internet
would
knowingly
originate
from
a
BBC
website.
In
addition,
the
BBC
as a
responsible
publisher
on
the
Internet
would
certainly
never
knowingly
wish
to
host
material
which
involved
abuse
or
harm
to
participating
adults,
or
that
might
encourage
or
incite
people
accessing
it
to
commit
actual
harm.
The
BBC
exercises
editorial
control
over
all
BBC
generated
online
content
as
well
as
moderating
all
online
spaces
where
our
users
publish
content.
BBC
online
interactive
spaces
for
children
are
all
pre-moderated.
BBC
Search,
our
search
engine,
includes
safeguards
against
illegal
and
potentially
harmful
content
and
the
BBC
search
service
for
children
only
includes
sites
chosen
and
reviewed
by
BBC
editorial
staff.
The
BBC,
along
with
all
UK
broadcasters,
works
within
the
obscenity
laws
as
described
in
this
consultation,
and
for
television
and
radio
services
it
also
complies
with
the
Harm
and
Offence
section
of
the
Ofcom
Broadcasting
Code
rule
1.25
which
states
that
"BBFC-R18
rated
films
or
their
equivalent
must
not
be
broadcast."
However,
we
are
concerned
that
despite
reassurances
to
the
contrary,
the
legislation
as
drafted
in
this
consultation
document
could
inadvertently
have
a
negative
but
material
impact
on
the
freedom
of
the
BBC
and
the
UK
mainstream
entertainment
industry
as a
whole
to
broadcast
certain
categories
of
content.
We
believe
that
without
significant
revisions,
in
particular
a
much
tighter
definition
of
the
term
"extreme
pornography"
there
is a
significant
risk
that
some
BBC
output,
including
documentaries,
black
comedies,
dramas,
animations,
works
featuring
extensive
computer
generated
images
and
BBFC
classified
films,
could
fall
foul
of
the
current
wording.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
potential
impact
on
legitimate
journalistic
investigation
into
the
subject
of
extreme
adult
pornography,
in
the
public
interest.
This
concern
arises
from
a
lack
of
precise
detail
in
the
consultation
document
about
the
proposed
safeguards
to
be
adopted
in
relation
to
journalists
and
other
content
producers
to
ensure
they
work
within
the
law
whilst
legitimately
gathering
material
and
reporting
for
news
and
current
affairs
or
other
factual
output.
Production
of
BBC
Content
and
Safeguards
for
Journalists
The
BBC
welcomes
point
57,
page
15
of
the
consultation
document
that
states:
•
"There
will
be
no
restriction
on
political
expression
or
public
interest
matters,
or
on
artistic
expression.
It
is
not
the
intention
that
this
offence
should
impact
upon
legitimate
reporting
for
news
purposes,
or
information
gathering
for
documentary
programmes
in
the
public
interest,
and,
in
drafting
the
offence,
we
will
give
careful
consideration
to
the
best
means
of
ensuring
this."
We
also
welcome
the
following:
•
point
37
on
page
11
"any
new
offence
would
apply
only
to
pornographic
material.
In
other
words,
material
that
has
been
solely
or
primarily
produced
for
the
purpose
of
sexual
arousal.
It
is
not
the
intention
to
capture
medical
or
scientific
material,
educational,
artistic,
mainstream
broadcast
entertainment,
or
news
footage".
•
point
51
on
page
13
"It
is
not
the
intention
to
impinge
on
the
freedom
of
the
media
in
respect
of
news
coverage,
or
of
analysis
or
documentary
footage
of
real
events,
including
atrocities
committed
in
other
countries."
•
first
point
on
page
2
"it
is
not
our
intention
to
penalise
anyone
who
accidentally
stumbles
across
the
material
specified
in
the
proposal,
or
who
has
it
sent
to
them
without
their
consent,
or
has
a
legitimate
reasons
(such
as
assisting
law
enforcement)
for
dealing
with
it".
We
assume
these
four
statements
taken
together
mean
that
the
BBC
would
be
able
to
investigate
the
subject
of
extreme
adult
pornography
should
it
chose
to
do
so,
providing
the
final
exemptions
and
safeguards
are
adequate.
If
we
do
investigate
the
subject
of
extreme
adult
pornography
we
may
well
wish
to
make
use
of
"pixellated"
images
of
the
activities
in
question
to
give
audiences
some
understanding
of
what
is
involved.
This
was
the
case
recently
with
BBC
Two's
The
Hunt
for
Britain's
Paedophiles
when
illegal
footage
of
child
pornography
was
used
in
the
programmes
to
give
audiences
a
sense
of
what
is
involved
with
the
offending
details
carefully
obscured
by
pixellation.
However,
as
this
would
normally
involve
the
downloading
of
such
images
onto
a
BBC
or
home
computer,
we
are
looking
for
reassurance
that
the
offence
of
possession
would
not
be
committed
as
defined
in
this
consultation
and
that
journalists
acting
in
the
public
interest
would
not
find
themselves
breaking
the
law.
The
BBC
would
therefore
welcome
clarification
as
to
the
precise
nature
of
the
proposed
exemptions
and
safeguards
for
journalists
which
will
allow
legitimate
journalistic
investigation
into
the
subject
of
extreme
adult
pornography
without
the
breaking
of
any
proposed
new
law
on
possession.
Broadcast
of
Content
on
the
BBC
and
Clarity
of
Definitions
in
the
Proposed
Legislation
On
page
11
point
38
it
states
that
"the
offence
would
be
limited
to
explicit
actual
scenes
or
realistic
depictions
of
the
specified
types
of
material.
By
"explicit"
we
intend
the
offence
to
cover
activity
which
can
be
clearly
seen
and
is
not
hidden,
disguised
or
implied.
The
intention
is
also
only
to
cover
actual
images
or
realistic
depictions
of
the
activities
listed
(but
not,
for
example
text
or
cartoons).
By
realistic
depictions
we
intend
to
capture
those
scenes
which
appear
to
be
real
and
are
convincing,
but
which
may
be
acted."
We
would
like
to
observe
that
it
will
be
essential
to
clearly
define
what
is
meant
by
"cartoon".
The
world
of
digital
animation
is
continually
advancing,
already
it
is
possible
to
create
incredibly
"real"
looking
yet
computer
generated
"cartoon
characters"
set
against
a
computer
generated
"real"
backdrop.
The
very
successful
BBC
series
"Walking
with
Dinosaurs"
and
"Walking
with
Beasts"
are
both
examples
of
just
how
sophisticated
digital
manipulation
has
already
become.
It
is
not
hard
to
imagine
a
time
when
it
is
impossible
to
distinguish
between
"cartoon"
and
"reality".
Page
11
point
39
states
"We
propose
restricting
the
offence
to
explicit
pornography
containing
actual
scenes
or
realistic
depictions
of:
1.
intercourse
or
oral
sex
with
an
animal
2.
sexual
interference
with
a
human
corpse
3.
serious
violence
in a
sexual
context
and
4.
serious
sexual
violence"
Again
we
would
like
to
make
the
following
observations.
•
In
relation
to
the
definition
of
bestiality
the
Sexual
Offences
Act
2003
only
refers
to
intercourse
with
an
animal
and
not
to
oral
sex.
Is
it
intended
to
extend
the
Act?
• In
relation
to
the
definition
of
necrophilia,
the
Sexual
Offences
Act
2003
refers
to
an
"intentional
act
of
penetration"
this
appears
to
be a
much
narrower
definition
than
the
one
proposed
in
point
39
which
refers
to
"sexual
interference".
What
would
constitute
"sexual
interference"?
• In
relation
to
the
depiction
of
sexual
violence
in a
sexual
context
or
serious
sexual
violence
we
would
welcome
clarification
as
to
whether
for
example
a
documentary
featuring
a
reconstruction
of
an
alleged
auto-erotic
asphyxiation
would
be
caught
by
the
wording
of
this
legislation
as
currently
proposed?
Other
Issues
Raised
by
the
Proposed
Legislation
General
In
addition
to
the
concerns
we
have
raised
above
in
relation
to
what
we
believe
are
potentially
significant
but
unintended
consequences
of
the
proposed
strengthening
of
the
criminal
law
in
respect
of
possession
of a
limited
category
of
extreme
adult
pornography,
we
also
feel
this
consultation
document
raises
other
important
issues
in
relation
to
the
processes
surrounding
the
enactment
of
legislation.
We
would
therefore
like
to
pose,
without
prejudice,
a
number
of
other
questions
to
help
promote
that
debate.
They
are
summarised
below.
•
How
does
the
creation
of
an
offence
to
possess
a
limited
category
of
extreme
pornographic
material
tackle
the
problem
of
the
publication
of
this
material,
particularly
when
"those
responsible
for
publication
mostly
operate
from
abroad"?
•
How
will
this
new
law
make
any
significant
difference
in
the
demand/supply
cycle?
•
How
will
the
protection
of
"those
who
participate
in
the
creation
of
sexual
material
containing
violence,
cruelty
or
degradation,
who
may
be
the
victim
of
crime
in
the
making
of
the
material,
whether
or
not
they
notionally
or
genuinely
consent
to
take
part;"
and
the
desire
to
"protect
society,
particularly
children,
from
exposure
to
such
material
to
which
access
can
no
longer
be
reliably
controlled
through
legislation
dealing
with
publication
and
distribution,
and
which
may
encourage
interest
in
violent
or
aberrant
sexual
activity"
be
achieved
through
this
proposed
legislation?
•
How
will
it
be
ensured
that
"any
new
offence
would
apply
only
to
pornographic
material?
In
other
words,
material
that
has
been
solely
or
primarily
produced
for
the
purpose
of
sexual
arousal.
It
is
not
the
intention
to
capture
medical
or
scientific
material,
educational,
artistic,
mainstream
broadcast
entertainment,
or
news
footage"?
Protection
of
Children
The
BBC
fully
supports
the
stated
aim
of
the
consultation
in
relation
to
the
protection
of
children.
As
we
say
in
our
overview
we
have
robust
mechanisms
in
place
to
protect
children
who
access
BBC
content
online.
These
include:
•
editorial
control
over
all
BBC
generated
online
content.
•
moderation
of
all
online
spaces
where
our
users
publish
content.
•
pre-moderation
of
all
BBC
online
interactive
spaces
for
children.
•
safeguards
for
BBC
search
against
illegal
and
potentially
harmful
content.
•
procedures
for
choosing
and
reviewing
of
sites
by
BBC
editorial
staff
for
the
BBC
search
service
for
children.
However
we
would
value
reassurance
about
how
this
proposed
legislation
will
produce
the
desired
effect
of
protecting
children,
as
well
as
any
evidence
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
safeguards
it
is
proposed
to
use.
Evidence
of
Harm
The
fact
that
the
problem
of
extreme
adult
pornography
is
more
complex
than
that
of
child
pornography
is
acknowledged
in
the
consultation
document.
Section
26
page
9
states
"Although
the
arguments
are
less
clear
cut
in
respect
of
violent
and
abusive
adult
pornography
(compared
with
possession
of
indecent
photographs
and
pseudo-photographs
of
children)
we
believe
that
a
possession
offence
will
send
a
clear
message
about
this
material,
will
make
it
easier
to
combat
it
and
may
reduce
demand
for
it."
However
the
consultation
document
does
not
seem
to
recognise
the
arguments
are
less
clear
cut
because:
•
the
global
consensus
about
the
harm
involved
in
child
pornography
does
not
exist
in
relation
to
extreme
adult
pornography.
•
there
is
no
global
agreement
about
what
is
so
unacceptable
that
it
should
be
illegal
in
relation
to
extreme
adult
pornography.
•
much
of
the
imagery
is
fake
or
staged
by
consenting
adults.
The
BBC
believes
there
is
evidence
that
some
people
who
access
child
pornography
go
on
themselves
to
abuse
a
child
and
people
who
have
been
abused
are
more
likely
than
others
to
go
on
to
abuse
children.
However,
we
are
unaware
of
the
existence
of
any
clear
evidence
of
such
links
in
the
case
of
extreme
adult
pornography.
The
example
quoted
for
the
UK
in
this
consultation
is
that
of
Graham
Coutts
who
was
convicted
in
February
2004
for
the
murder
of
teacher
Jane
Longhurst.
In
this
case
the
court
heard
how
Coutts
repeatedly
accessed
web
sites
depicting
violent
sex
and
how
elements
of
his
actions
mirrored
what
he
had
seen
on-line.
The
consultation
says
"we
believe
from
the
observations
of
the
police
and
others
who
investigate
it,
that
the
material
may
often
cause
serious
physical
and
other
harm
to
those
involved."
But
on
harmful
effects
generally
it
concludes
that
"we
are
unable
at
present
to
draw
any
definite
conclusions
based
on
research".
Legal
Content
While
some
people
find
much
of
this
extreme
adult
pornography
offensive,
not
all
of
it
is
illegal.
We
suggest
that
the
subtleties
and
complexities
of
this
issue
require
more
consideration
including
the
assumption
made
in
this
consultation
document
that
"most
people
would
find
this
material
abhorrent"
and
the
stated
desire
to
prosecute
"real"
material"
in
exactly
the
same
way
as
"realistic
material
that
may
be
acted".
Illegal
Content
The
consultation
document
makes
it
clear
that
when
something
is
illegal
offline
it
is
also
illegal
on-line.
As
it
is
clearly
illegal
under
existing
obscenity
legislation
in
the
UK
to
publish,
sell
or
import
certain
types
of
extreme
adult
pornography
we
would
suggest
that
it
might
be
appropriate
to
explore
the
role
of
the
Internet
Watch
Foundation
(IWF)
in
running
"notice
and
take
down
procedures"
in
relation
to
this
illegal
adult
content.
However,
it
does
seem
that
the
lack
of
consensus
about
what
can
be
clearly
defined
as
illegal
extreme
pornographic
material,
combined
with
the
lack
of
clarity
of
some
aspects
of
the
legislation
as
we
detail
above,
could
make
the
operation
of a
black
list
dealing
with
this
content
much
more
difficult
than
the
list
of
sites
currently
dealing
with
child
abuse
images.
In
addition,
as
we
highlight
above,
the
definitions
of
bestiality
and
necrophilia
seem
to
be
more
widely
drawn
in
this
consultation
document
than
in
the
legislation
embodied
in
the
Sexual
Offences
Act
2003
making
acts
that
are
currently
legal
under
that
legislation,
illegal
in
relation
to
the
possession
of a
limited
category
of
extreme
adult
pornography.
Enforceability
of
Proposed
Legislation
The
consultation
says
that
a
key
aim
of
the
proposed
strengthening
of
the
criminal
law
in
respect
of
the
possession
of a
limited
category
of
extreme
adult
pornography
is
to
protect
children
from
exposure
to
such
material.
We
would
value
clarification
as
to
how
the
Home
Office
views
the
enforceability
of
this
proposed
new
legislation
in
light
of
the
police's
experience
and
lessons
learned
from
the
law
on
possession
of
Child
Pornography.
As
we
understand
it
the
original
thrust
of
the
child
abuse
legislation
was
to
bear
down
on
possession
of
images
by
adults,
but
Operation
Ore
seems
to
indicate
that
this
approach
is
impractical.
Although
it
produced
over
7000
UK
based
suspects
who
had
paid
for
access
to
illegal
child
abuse
images,
it
appears
that
the
police
found
these
numbers
difficult
to
deal
with.
Recently
the
focus
in
the
UK
has
shifted
onto
the
prevention
of
access,
illustrated
by
the
emergence
of
BT's
Cleanfeed
and
pressure
on
ISPs
and
search
engines
to
deny
their
users
access
to
the
IWF
black
list
of
illegal
sites.
British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane,
London, W12 7TQ