Opinion

Stitched Up

I don't know if you know about this one, but the BBFC has cut the Disney film Lilo & Stitch to get a U certificate.  The uncut version would get a 12 certificate.

The contentious scene was of a young child climbing out of a washing machine, having hidden in it offscreen.  This was replaced with other footage for a U certificate.

It feels weird to say this, but I wholeheartedly agree with this decision.  I do feel that it is something that should have been self-censored by the distributors, but it is a clear case of those "imitable techniques" the BBFC are so fond of quoting.  In this particular case of a film aimed at children, I have to admit I think it is unacceptable to show something that young children might imitate with potentially life-threatening consequences.

I do feel that, however flawed their guidelines may be at the adult levels, the BBFC does sometimes make the right decision.

 

Thanks for your letter,

Interestingly the BBFC used the example of climbing into a washing machine in their series of public roadshows a couple of years back. I will ask them if they made any conclusions about the public response on this issue. I would hazzard a guess that you would find a broad agreement with your view.

I don't corrosively take an automatic opposition to every BBFC decision.   I am happy that the BBFC offer professional and well considered opinions on issues of age classification and most importantly they keep us informed of their decisions and their reasons. In addition they are always more than happy to debate the issue if you would like to take it further.

However, I disagree with the very essence of state censorship, particularly when backed up by such draconian and and rights abusing enforcement options as provided by the Video Recordings Act. In theory people people can now be fined 20,000 for selling an imported uncut version of the movie when in fact our state censors have said its perfectly ok as long it has a suitable 12 rating sticker on it. And before anyone chips in with the defense that the enforcers are responsible people who would not use the law unjustly, we only have to look at the recent example of HM Customs stealing peoples cars without any legal justification whatsoever.

 

Before you rush out and buy the 'uncut' region 1 Disk, I have heard that Disney were so impressed by the BBFC's arguments that they decided to remove the scene entirely from all international release prints (in the US and Europe as well). 

Or so I was informed... Michael points out: I have the Region 1 DVD, and it is most definitely uncut. In my opinion, the scene would be virtually impossible to remove completely.

Anti (unjustified) Censorship

Dear Adult Channel,

I was reading on the "Melon Farmer's" about the ITC's judgement against the Adult Channel

About the ITC threatening your service with draconian measures, for
breaches of their undemocratic "program code", which in my view is a
restriction of Human Rights to freedom of expression, because it is
imposed without the kind of justification (as to likely harm caused
etc) which is clearly required in any case of state interference with
rights under Article 10, of the Human Rights Act now part of UK law.
This can also be read on the ITCs own web site, at www.itc.org.uk

www.itc.org.uk/itc_publications/complaints_reports/programme_complaints/show_complaint.asp?prog_complaint_id=545

On many occasions I have asked the ITC to explain why their arbitrary
"guidelines" in relation to "adult" programs are set where they are,
and to explain in a way compatible with Human Rights, and every time I
was met with a brush off, or sometimes no response at all. I believe
that as a public body, if they are going to impose such restrictions
they have to justify them, and such restrictions have to be carefully
considered, after strict tests of necessity, and principles of
tolerance and *broad mindedness* have been applied.
Just saying that "the British Public don't want this, or that" IS NOT
justification, and in fact isn't true either. Recent surveys by the
BBFC and even the ITC themselves, have indicated this.

I have to say, that whilst you are restricted in this way, as to the
limits of what you are "allowed" to show, I would never consider
subscribing to your service, ( I did once, long ago in the analogue
days) and I suspect the same applies to many many other would be
viewers too! That is not, of course your fault, I am well aware of
the regime you find yourself operating under. What I do not understand
is why, in the interests of your business, and your (would be)
subscribers you do not challenge it ? I note that the ITC have
tacitly now stopped "proscribing" the more recent "adult" offerings
from Europe, such as "Sex View" etc, and it seems to me, there is
unfair competition from the more liberal regimes in Europe.

Were you free to show more explicit material (which is what I believe
people want anyway) I would not hesitate to subscribe. But I would not
pay for material censored by an undemocratic regime, without proper
justification.

I have sent a copy of this Email to the ITC in the hope that they
might offer some "strict justification" as to the necessity of their
(undemocratically decided) guidelines, after they have applied
principles of tolerance and broad mindedness. I would hope that they
might reply to me directly about this.

Regards, and thank you for your time.

A would be Subscriber

 

I took this from one of the ITC's own public consultation reports entitled
'Television on Trial - Citizens Juries on Taste and Decency' - The PUBLIC
JURIES agreed "Pornographic material could be shown provided it was legal
and limited to pay-per-view or subscription channels"

As you may recall I wrote to the ITC on this subject some time ago, in light
of the HRA and the revised BBFC guidelines, I questioned how they could
still enforce a 'NO REAL SEX' ban on 'adult' subscription-only channels. I
did not receive a response needless to say.

It now seems quite clear to me that the ITC cannot have read their own
report or, have failed to understand what the public were saying or, have
simply chosen to ignore the law and the public's views. Their rules banning
pornography on TV have not altered despite the fact that the law says
consensual adult sex IS LEGAL and the public's view is that this material IS
acceptable on subscription TV.

To then fine or otherwise threaten the Adult Channel for transmitting some
vaguely 'unacceptable detail' (which generated a grand total of ONE
complaint!) makes a complete mockery of our free and democratic principals.
The ITC are clearly flouting the law and the will of the people and yet
still claim they uphold standards of taste and decency.

To my mind, the only thing the ITC could do in the name of taste and decency
would be to resign their commission!

 

Thank you for contacting us with your query about the content of 'adult' services.

As you are aware, the BBFC has led a change in policy towards adult
films, with the introduction of the 'R18' category. However, there are
no plans to relax the present rules that prohibit such material from
being broadcast on ITC licensed channels.

More general ‘adult’ services have been allowed on cable and satellite
channels for a decade now. They include programming more explicit than
would be allowed on either free-to-air or basic package channels. Much
of the programming is cut down ‘R18’ material. However, the ITC has
always considered that material sold only in eighty or so outlets
across the UK - and not even by mail order- is unsuitable for the
schedules of even a specialist broadcaster.

The point is often made about the security now possible on encrypted
digital systems. New technology can certainly increase control over
unintended viewing, but, in reality, the PIN systems available to the
vast majority of multi-channel viewers are rather limited.

We also know from our own research that, while it is becoming more
liberal in this respect, public opinion does not generally favour so
great a change to the limits of sexual portrayal on television.

As you state, it is possible this view may be open to challenge under
European law. However, it is the ITC’s position that our regulations
are likely to be judged as fully in compliance with Human Rights
legislation. Article 10 of the European Convention states that the
right to free expression may be subject to restrictions, in certain
circumstances, such as for the protection of morals.

I realise this letter may come as a disappointment, and I am sure you
will continue to disagree with our policies, but I hope it explains
the reasons for our position.

Yours sincerely,

John Glover
Programme Manager

 

Dear Mr. Glover,

I am glad that the ITC has finally admitted that they effectively
censor programme material because of the protection of other people's
private (sexual) morals rather than any real harm which may ensue if
the programmes were to be allowed by invitation only, into our homes.
I'm sure there are many who would be most interested to learn the
concern of the ITC for their private moral, and dare I ask spiritual
well being ?

However I have to wonder if this sort of prohibition really is
necessary in a democratic, plural, tolerant, so called free (?)
society such as ours. I also wonder if the ITC has applied principles
of tolerance and broad mindedness when considering what should and
should not be permitted on broadcast subscription only television.

You say in your letter that: public opinion does not generally favour so great a change to the limits of sexual portrayal on television

It seems that you have ignored your own research, from your OWN
citizens Juries, which clearly stated that: Pornography should be allowed, provided it is legal

Also the BBFC found that people *do* want to make their own choices,
and not have such choices imposed upon them by unelected institutions.

It seems to me, that you quote public opinion when it is convenient,
to you, and simply ignore it when it isn't. In any case since when has
public opinion been the arbiter of free expression ? There are many
other things which are not restricted, even though public opinion is
cited as being against it. Public opinion is absolutely no
justification whatsoever, for a restriction of free expression.

This of course is a matter of me fighting for my freedom, not the
right to watch "Adult" programming. During the time the ITC has
considered that such work is "unsuitable for the schedules of even a
specialist broadcaster" I have been free to receive broadcasts from
more liberal and FREE countries via satellite and of course to view
it legally on video tape should I wish to. Perhaps the ITC considers
the morals of the whole of Europe to be unsatisfactory because they
permit such material to be shown ?

I can only suggest that the effect of your policy is about as impotent
as the limit of "Adult" programming content you permit to be shown on
British television, and such restriction is more unacceptable than the
programs you wish to continue to ban.

I believe such a restriction is both childish, and unnecessary, and
unnecessary censorship is a breach of Human Rights.

If the case for censorship really is that strong the ITC would have no
trouble in citing instances of harm rather than bleating on about
people's private morality, something which really should not really
concern them.

It seems that something is very wrong and undemocratic when you get
many letters protesting about excessive censorship (and I know you
have), which you are not prepared to do anything at all about, but on
the other hand never fail to pull all the stops out, when ONE SINGLE
viewer complains that an Adult channel...

(which he probably subscribed to, to be an amateur censor anyway)

...goes a little bit over your (repressive) guidelines.

 

Shaun has already made most of the points but I was intrigued to about the ITC's assertion that distribution limited to 80 shops constitutes a reason for prohibition. The small number originates from a refusal to allow them to sell hardcore coupled with excessive and misused licensing powers given to councils. The small market for softcore made it commercially unviable for shops to fight dodgy decisions made by some councils.

Now that hardcore is legal, the shops can now offer a popular product and so many more are opening. In the couple of years since legalisation the number of shops has now doubled to about 150. Now that there is profit to be made, shops are more able and willing to appeal and challenge some of the dodgy council decisions.

So how many sex shops have to open before the ITC change their minds? Is 150 enough? When mail order sales are well established, will the ITC change their minds?

It seems clear to me that the ITC are knowingly breaking the law. I don't suppose that anyone could be imprisoned for denying human rights but maybe they could be made to pay compensation for services that lose revenue as a result.

 

Dear Mr. Glover,

Further to my recent reply to your letter, I would appreciate a more detailed analysis as to why the
ITC still feels it necessary to prohibit the more explicit adult channels from British subscription
television, when most other European countries do not. According what I can infer from your recent
letter, the ITC does this, on the grounds of "morality" and I wonder if you can explain the reasoning
behind this in more detail please ? I do not believe that your replies so far, offer the "strict"
justification according to harm, for what is, after all, an act of censorship, and therefore a
restriction of Article 10, Freedom of Expression.

You might wish to note that the BBFC now fully justifies ALL its acts of censorship in great detail
taking the trouble to explain to anyone who wishes to know the reason for their decisions.

I can only make the fair assumption that if you are unable to offer me a more detailed explanation
(according to harm done) for your restrictions, then the restrictions really are unjustified. As I said
in my earlier reply, if the restriction really was that "necessary", the ITC would have no trouble
whatsoever in going into greater detail.

If you are wondering where I get my notions about the effect of Human Rights law from please read the
web page at: webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1998/issue1/bingham1.html

Particularly the passage: The European Court of Human Rights has imposed a strict test of necessity, relying on such concepts as pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness. The overriding principle is clear: since the right in question is to be regarded as fundamental, any restriction of it must be strictly justified(15).

As the "public authority" responsible for such censorship, I believe it is your duty to provide such
justification to those who are restricted in any way, and I include myself here.

 

I feel I have already explained the ITC position - and the reasons behind that position - in my previous correspondence. However, I recognise that you feel very strongly about these issues and, that being the case, I also realise you are very unlikely to agree with any further explanation I may be able to offer.

Nevertheless, there is an important point that is, perhaps being overlooked - especially in your reliance on principles enshrined inEuropean law. The "R18" adult material to which you refer is not unavailable in the UK. It can be purchased quite freely, over thecounter, from licensed sex shops. However, the UK government has seen fit to make it an offence for such material to be distributed by mailorder. It would seem entirely inconsistent with this legally enforced restriction on distribution for the ITC to then allow it to be purchased from a viewer's armchair.

I feel I should also restate that the European legislation on "freedom of expression" is not absolute. On the contrary, it allows governments and other statutory bodies the latitude to impose proportionate restrictions in certain circumstances. The ITC is comfortable that,against that background, and in the light of *national* legislation, our position is fully compliant with *all* relevant law.

As I've stated, I realise your personal opinion is very different, and that this letter will not change your mind. But since I feel there is no more I can add by way of explanation, I see no purpose in entering into further correspondence.

 

In fact there is NO prohibition on adult films being distributed by mail order, at least that is, if they are ordered from outlets in Europe rather than within the country. Indeed HM Customs and the postal service will happily forward imported adult videos and DVDs ordered from abroad, after they have been opened for Customs inspection, provided their content does not breach the British Board of Film Classifications "R18" guidelines. They have admitted that not to forward such material to the importer might well cause them to fall foul of European legislation and be disproportionate. The only legally enforced (by trading standards in fact) prohibition is onclassified R18 material from being sent via the post, mail order, froma UK licensed seller, and that too, is a ridiculous and disproportionate restriction, as it clearly discriminates against the severely disabled, and other people who for whatever reason could not,or would not, go to these licensed adult premises in person.

You mention a "proportionate restriction" under Human Rights law.. (which is also very much British law now too)

...which you are allowed to impose on us, in certain circumstances. Indeed, that is the case. However I do believe that public bodies such as yourselves, should justify the necessity of that restriction, only by your own assessment of the HARM which would ensue, if the restriction were not in force. I do not really think you can simply use other legislation as justification, especially as I do not believe you, the ITC, are actually bound by it. I do not think there is any legislation which in fact forbids you from allowing an R18 video to be shown on PIN protected subscription only services on digital satellite. You have however, singularly failed (as have the government itself) to give any reasoned and rational explanation as to why it is necessary, and proportionate, to impose this restriction of censorship on the free people of the United Kingdom, and I will not hesitate to continue to demand such an explanation when I learn of instances where I feel my rights are being violated for no good reason. I also believe I am not alone in this. It is not as if such material would be forced upon those people who have no desire to see it, is it ? That being the case, why do your restrictions support their position rather than mine ?

I would point out that the BBFC did their utmost to keep their prohibition on the more explicit R18 video works. I actually attended the Video Appeals Committee tribunal in London at Soho Square, wherethe BBFC made a brave but quite feeble attempt to demonstrate the (none existent) harm, which would occur, if the more explicit R18 videos were to be allowed to be sold. As history now shows, they failed. Nor has that widespread harm they imagined would happen, actually become manifest, in more than two years, since such works were legally available. It is interesting to note that they now defend their current position. I believe that if the ITC were required to show the harm of these videos being broadcast...

(and harm really is the only proportionate justification, if Human Rights is to mean anything)

...the ITC too, like the BBFC would also singularly fail to be able to do so. Unless of course, the ITC has conducted its own research into the effect of such works upon free people. But of course it has not done so, unless I am very much mistaken. For if it had, The ITC might be able to offer people like me, a far better explanation for its restrictions that those I have received from them so far, right back to the day when "Red Hot Dutch" was recommended for proscription.

One thing the ITC are apparently not doing, is prohibiting these works from television because they are in fact *harmful* to the degree which justifies such a prohibition. But that, I believe is the only reasonthe ITC could properly have, for imposing such a prohibition. It does explain why I do not get a more reasoned explanation for this clearly disproportionate restriction the ITC have imposed upon us. Surely it isn't simply because some people don't like such videos for whatever reason, is it ? I Sincerely hope not!

But if the ITC cannot demonstrate the harm of certain material, what other valid reason is there for the restriction the ITC imposes on it? A fair and logical question which warrants a fair and justified answer. I am sure intelligent people would agree with that.

 

Film Four Extreme are running an season of sex films this month...Probably showing whatever they can get away with.....

Saturday night we had La Bete and last night In The Realm Of TheSenses. I thought "La Bete" was actually quite hilarous, especially the sceneof semen continously dribbling from the monster's penis, down onto thechest of the young girl

I was surprised how explicit the last film actually was.. It seems the truth is that you can see just about any sex act on TV provided itisn't there to make you "get off"

I wonder if these explicit scenes of masturbation, and fellatio would now be allowed on the Adult channel? Interestingly, these could, in theory be shown on Channel Four in the clear! I wonder when Film Four are going to show Romance?

The ITC have a document 'ADULT' SERVICES available at http://www.itc.org.uk/itc_publications/itc_notes/view_note.asp?itc_note_id=49

The ITC tell me: The ITC Programme Code is on our website under Codes and ITC Publications: Codes and Guidance Notes: Programme Code.  The relevant sections are 1.2, 1.4(i), 1.4(ii) and 1.6.  All the relevant legislation is listed in Appendix 4.

This is at: http://www.itc.org.uk/itc_publications/codes_guidance/programme_code/index.asp

You may recall that the Sexual Freedom Coalition was formed in response to unjust police action towards the Sex Maniacs Ball, details at www.sfc.org.uk

It would seem to me that an organisation would have a better chance of "defeating" the ITC than any one or more individuals. I would suggest that an organisation is formed with the express purpose of ensuring that the ITC allows R18 material to become available on subscription-only channels (a big step in the right direction).

The organisation would need a Chairperson, secretary, treasurer, council and supporters. And I would strongly recommend that it gets representatives from other organisations, such as (a) the SFC (b) the "viewers panel" that took on the BBFC (c) etc.

You might want to view some of the SFC's documents on the subject at: http://www.sfc.org.uk/docs/default.htm

I would be happy to do the Web site for such an organisation for free (see World Sex News)

 

Did you know that over the last few months sky have been showing hardcore porn on the 18 movie channels, page 700 and something.  Every Lovers Guide film ever made in all their detail!  Try one, toys the works.

 

I contacted the ITC four years ago to be told that Hardcore sex on TV was just not allowed!

 

PS. am I the only one to see this.

 

I read that you suggested an organisation be formed to force the ITCs hand
re R18. This sounds a most sensible suggestion, however I am surprised that
there appears to be so little activity on this subject. Unfortunately I am
too busy to run any such campaign myself, as I guess many people are,
however surely someone in this country has the necessary time and resource?

Despite this I am willing to help wherever I can and have made a start by
sending a letter to the ITC (see attached below with a retype of their
reply). I know its standard stuff but if enough people ask enough questions
often enough it may have some effect and will at least keep the issue in
their minds.

I try to keep an eye on some of the nutter sites from time to time and I
found this piece on the Media Watch site concerning the new communications
act:
(http://www.mediawatchuk.org/newsbriefs/autumn2002.htm)

With regard to Standards, Codes and Complaints Procedures the Report notes
that all licensable content services are subject to a framework of standards
set out in clauses 212 to 221. Clause 212 provides a skeleton which OFCOM is
to flesh out into standards codes. The Government's aim is to ensure that
'these standards are flexible so as to be able to reflect changes in social
attitudes and audience expectation'. The standards have been criticised for
failing to carry forward the existing obligations ... on securing good taste
or decency. The Committee agreed with suggestions that existing obligations
are "demonstrably obsolete" and concluded that Clause 212, as drafted,
provides an appropriate framework for the preparation of standards codes.

I have had a quick look at the new draft communications bill and I think
they are correct but its difficult to be certain, as its very heavy
reading to say the least. I would be interested to know what you think about
this.

One final point it would appear that the coming year will be of great
importance as it will see the new communications bill come into force, the
end of the ITC and the creation of OFCOM including all its policies. This
will be a rare opportunity to influence things. My big concern is getting
timely information. For instance if there is going to be a parliamentary
vote on introducing a taste & decency clause into the bill I want to know as
far before the vote as possible so that I can write to my MP. Similarly it
would be tremendously useful to know who the responsible person will be in
OFCOM before any policies have been finalised. I will obviously keep a close
watch on the Melon Farmers site but are there any other sites that I should
be monitoring?

My first letter:

Dear Sir,
I am curious to know why the ITC continues to ban hardcore pornography from
terrestrial broadcast on existing 'adult' channels.
Such material is now readily available through many foreign satellite
channels and will soon be available to all Sky Digital subscribers by the
simple act of purchasing a set top box when the Satisfaction Channel
commences broadcasting from the popular slot at 28 degrees east (imminent).

Additionally video or DVD can be legally purchased from the increasing
number of licensed sex shops and via the Internet.
There is no conclusive evidence that pornography of this type causes any
harm and even your own public consultations have demonstrated that the
public believe Pornographic material could be shown provided it was legal
and limited to pay-per-view or subscription channels. I find this ITC ban
to be both pointless and grossly offensive and I am sure that a large
proportion of the public would agree with my views.

It would be easy to form the opinion that this ban has nothing to do with
protecting the public and everything to do with political expediency and the
personal morality and beliefs of those responsible within the ITC.
 

Thank you for contacting us about this subject. I doubt that anything I say
will alter your opinion that hardcore material should be allowed on ITC
licensed adult services. But I hope that I can at least demonstrate that our
policy is a considered one that seeks to balance the various interests.

Adult services have been allowed on cable and satellite services for a
decade now. They include programming more explicit than would be allowed on
free-to-air or basic package channels. Much of the programming is cut down
hardcore. Our research indicates, however that public opinion does not
favour a move to wholly explicit programming of the sort now available in
R18-rated videos. These videos are available only in licensed sex shops.

So a balance is struck between the legitimate wishes of adults to see sex
programming and the concerns over child protection. Broadcasting is not
obviously suited to providing material otherwise available only in a hundred
or so specialist shops where access by children can be easily policed. Even
where encryption and other security measures can be applied, the wide
distribution of the most explicit material must be a significant issue.

Thank you for raising this with us.

 

Letter to Alistair Hall of the ITC

I'm afraid you have failed to convince me that your current policy is either
considered or balanced. In your letter your statement concerning public
opinion indicates that the ITC believe it is reasonable for people with no
interest in a subject to determine the content of broadcasts on that
subject. I fail to see how this can be considered balanced.

Saying that child access to licence sex shops can be easily policed misses
the point. It makes no difference whether a video is purchased from a
licensed sex shop or recorded from a television broadcast, in both cases the
video will end up in the home where responsible adults must prevent such
material from falling into the hands of children as is already the case with
many things that are much more dangerous.

Your final point raises more questions than it answers. You say that even
when encryption and other security measures can be applied the wide
distribution of the most explicit material must be a significant issue, why
must it? Surely the use of encryption and other security measures is the
very reason why such material can be made available as it gives responsible
adults control of access to the broadcast and prevents accidental offence.

If there is a rational argument for prohibition of hardcore pornography on
late night subscription services I would still be most interested to know
what it is.

 

Letter to the ITC which they have declined to acknowledge

What is the proportionate aim of the ITC's prohibition of R18 content on "specialist subscription services" in concise terms please ? Why is such a prohibition the only way of minimising such harm ? Harm which the ITC has never shown is likely to occur anyway. Sky Digital Pin protected Encryption systems have been shown to be extremely efficient. Why is this not enough ?

Also I do not believe the quoting of simple public opinion can be considered to be any kind of justification of restriction of free expression, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. An act which the ITC as a public authority are now legally obliged to take into account. What would be the purpose of the Human Rights Act, if it could be circumvented by simple public opinion and not evidence of real harm ? This is especially irritating as the ITCs published account of public opinion does not reflect the view I received from the ITC!

The answers I seek are relatively simple. Proper justification as to harm, and the evidence that the restriction is proportionate and necessary in a free and democratic society.

If the prohibition were justified, the ITC would have NO trouble in providing such answers, rather than the whitewash it has sent in the past.

Certainly ignoring the questions as put, should not be an option for a public authority, in a country which is supposed to be committed to Human Rights.

 

On viewing your web site and the recent discussions that have taken place on it, I have drawn some conclusions:

1.                   I can find no trace anywhere of anything that says that the ITC has the power to allow broadcasting of R18 films or subject-matter which is similar on satellite television. I can't understand why people are contacting them on this issue as they cannot overrule a Parliamentary Act (although I may be mistaken). There are many aspects of the ITC I do not like but I don't think they are in a position to change this ruling;

2.                   The most appropriate person to contact is surely the minister responsible for censorship at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (Dr Kim Howells MP) or her boss (Tessa Jowell). Any questions regarding the legality of certain legislation should be directed to them;

3.                   The heart of the matter on the restriction of R18 films lies with the Video Recordings Act 1984 (and subsequent amendments). It is the legality of this Act with the introduction of several laws from Europe that is ultimately the big issue. In particular, there is no mention of technological advances that could change the need for the restriction. It is in stark contrast to the Audiovisual policies that are coming out of the European Union regarding technology;

4.                   The really big issue which the Government relies on is the protection of children. By destroying the Government's position on this aspect of the Act with regard to technological advancements, the Government cannot then defend it's position;

5.                   The moral questions are not relevant in the case of the Government and other quasi-Government bodies. They do not use this as a defence and therefore it is perhaps wasteful to spend too much time on it. People seem to conceive that the Government is taking a moral stand against adults (I believe it is) but it has not used that as a defence recently and is unlikely to do so. The Government relies solely on the issue regarding the protection of children;

6.                   The current adult stations on satellite television cannot afford to challenge the laws regarding R18 broadcasting. They would be left with so much material which would no longer have any use. After all, who will watch censored films if the same films are available in the hardcore version. I can only hope that they have been producing and buying harder versions of these programmes recently or they have wasted a lot of money which they will never recover. Only by thousands of subscribers cancelling their subscriptions are they likely to react. It is more likely that a civil liberties organisation or an individual will challenge the Government's interpretation of European law;

7.                   The setting up of OFCOM may lead to the restrictions being lifted. This would take a long time however as they only seem to have an advisory rôle in the matter of such legislation. I do not believe they can unilaterally change the Video Recordings Act;

8.                   I have not had much time to really understand the Television Without Frontiers Directive but there seems to be a lot of information contained within it which could be useful in pushing this argument forward;

The letter included a detailed argument which i have included as a seperate article: ITC & R18 An in- depth argument

Your site gives censorship a good name!

Do you ever stop to think about the wisdom of validating the sick, violent
fantasies of the kind of people who contribute to the discussions on your
website? These are people who clearly take a gloating delight in the
depiction of torture and death inflicted on others (especially - but not
exclusively - on women). I get the strong feeling that they would like
nothing better than to be allowed to watch scenes of actual torture and
murder. They are probably just a little shy of admitting this, but their
outrage at the removal of scenes of extreme degradation, choking, acts
likely to incur real physical harm to women in R18 videos strongly suggests
this.

I've nothing against people watching other people have consensual sex,
unless the scenes depicted are likely to either cause physical harm to the
participants or to encourage viewers to engage in acts that will cause
physical harm to others. And I can see why it's much easier to take a
purist, 'anything goes' view on censorship. But like many other examples of
absolutist ideology, such theoretical purism very rapidly degenerates into
ugly, cruel results.

Who is to be the judge of such 'physical harm' criteria? It seems to me that
the BBFC is doing a pretty good job in this way. However, I would prefer to
see the makers and distributors of this sort of stuff have the courage to
put their wares before the courts - some high-profile test cases would do a
lot to clarify what is really at stake here, and I have no doubt that juries
would easily be able to identify such harmful material. In this respect,
common sense is an excellent guide, and it is a shame that some
anti-censorship campaigners seem to have deliberately supressed this faculty
in themselves.

The classic expression of freedom of speech is of course in John Stuart
Mill's 'On Liberty'. No-one who has read this could possibly pretend that
Mill is arguing for the 'right' of people to make large sums of money out of
the depiction of sexual violence and torture. Encouraging the enjoyment of
sexual violence and torture is damaging both to actal individuals and to
society as a whole, and people should have no more right to do this than to
encourage racial hatred or to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

By the way, if you are genuinely interested in freedom of speech, how about
putting this message up on your website?

 

>Do you ever stop to think about the wisdom of validating the sick, violent fantasies of the kind of people who contribute to >the discussions on your website?  These are people who clearly take a gloating delight in the  depiction of torture and death >inflicted on others (especially - but not exclusively - on women)

There are many people who watch films of torture and death being
inflicted on others. Such material is on television etc. just about
every night of the week. Of course it is just about all simulated.
But there have been pictures of real people being killed. On the
evening news perhaps. Certainly in films of the execution of war
criminals. Certainly there are films of REAL torture which were
inflicted on REAL people, in concentration camps. All this has been
freely shown without restriction and with little concern for any
effect it may have. But what a commotion over films which are usually
nothing but works of fiction, played by skilled actors, but with
extreme themes! In fact any violence in Erotica would most likely be
simulated too. Mike mentions outrage of the censorship of people being
choked virtually to death in R18 videos ? What outrage ? I know of
little outrage. However I don't know of many videos where such extreme
scenes exist either. Certainly I've never seen them in the European
versions of these films. Maybe the BBFC are therefore being a little
over cautious in what they interpret to be dangerous ? In anycase
they would be simulated.

I believe the Melon Farmer's site is really about censorship which is
unjustified. Such censorship has long been imposed upon the British
people, and now a little less so. But only a little. At least in
part, this easing of restriction is due to the effect of the Human
Rights Act, and the fact that people are no longer afraid to be
reasonably honest about what they really want. Common sense ? If the
case for censorship is strong. then those who wish to limit the
FREEDOM of other people, would have NO PROBLEM in proving their case
for it. The evidence would be overwhelming. However in many instances
this has clearly not been the case, but much has been censored anyway.
As the British people have become more aware of this reality, so they
have asked questions about the necessity of a regime which restricts
other people without justification that such restriction is necessary.
Under the Human Rights Act this cannot be about public opinion, but
MUST be about HARM, and harm which is likely to occur, either to those
portrayed in the work, or to those who would see it later. This
philosophy should apply regardless how distasteful the work may or may
not be, or how offensive it may or may not be to many. Terms such as
"taste and decency" or "offense" are relative and arbitrary, and
should have no place in legislation where freedoms are provided for,
and limits have to be well defined and justified as to necessity.

Mike speaks of "common sense", but whose common sense are we
considering ? According to many people, for many years it was (and
in a few cases, still is) "common sense" that explicit consensual
adult pornography harms people, and therefore should be banned, with
penalties of THREE YEARS in PRISON, for those who transgress the law
by supplying the stuff. However, closer examination of the TRUTH has
clearly revealed that in fact this harm exists only in the mind of the
censors, both amateur and professional, rather than in the sphere of
reality. So, if freedom and truth mean anything, I would not be
inclined to rely on common sense, (especially the common sense of
those who have so often got it all wrong before) when making decisions
about other people's freedom and Human Rights, in regard to what they
are free to see.

The BBFC are doing a good job ? Perhaps now they are, at least in
comparison to the job they used to do, when material was clearly
banned unnecessarily. How do we really know that it was banned
unnecessarily ? Well because much which was banned, is now allowed,
including many of those video works which were the very cause of the
imposition of the Video Recordings Act, a legal instrument which
allows an undemocratic institution to dictate what video material we
may sell or buy, to view in the freedom of our own homes, and
indirectly limits what we may see on subscription television too. All
this in a free country too! It is interesting to note that so much
material which was the subject of prosecution, is now freely allowed.
So why was it prosecuted in the first place ? Was it because people
could not take the trouble to find out if it was harmful in the first
place ? So much for common sense then.

Obscenity trials have been interesting. Juries in fact have regularly
shown more common sense than the authorities, whose JOB IT IS to at
least try. Prosecutions have been brought, and thrown out. Having said
that, I do not think juries should be free to condemn material without
supporting evidence of harm, by those whose business it is, to prove
that harm really exists, otherwise arbitrary decisions will be made,
and the regime would surely not then be compatibly with human rights.

In most cases the experts cannot show any harm. In the case of sexual
violence, there is a small amount of evidence which indicates that in
some abnormal people, such material may "reenforce their distorted
cognitions" in relation to sexual matters, and then in a much smaller
subset of such people, harm _may_ result. I will leave the reader to
ponder about the amount of censorship which should be imposed for the
sake of abnormal individuals.

Most of continental Europe censors _very_ little. I have seen for
myself what is allowed in may countries. I have NOT seen the
decimation of society the censors claim would ensue, if we did not
have our BBFC and other censors empowered to restrict. So how
necessary is this ?

People often ask when asked to consider extreme material "who would
want to watch such a thing ?" Who would want to watch it however, is
not the issue here. What is the issue is whether or not the material
should be allowed. Even if one person wanted it. Or a small group of
people. This is one _very_ negative aspect of the Video Recordings
Act. It makes it completely uneconomic for low volume video works to
be sold in this country. This really isn't fair, and stifles
creativity. Many top directors and producers will have started their
careers in low volume specialist material. Not here they won't! The
solution to this is simple. Repeal the video recordings act. Or if the
state insists on pre-vetting and/or censoring our films, it should do
so at NO CHARGE to the vendors of the video works.

One thing about instances of censorship as a restriction. If it is
justified as being an absolutely necessary evil , it will be accepted
as such by the vast majority. For example I know of no one on the
Melon Farmer's site who argues that REAL snuff videos (were the
existence of one ever to be proven) should be legal, or sexual
material featuring children should be legal. But we are not stupid.
We are, on average, just as intelligent as the censors who would
restrict us, but believe instead that freedom of expression is a thing
to be valued and defended, and not something to be simply given up, at
the hysterical whim of those in authority who in some cases apparently
still believe they do not have to justify the imposition of severe
restrictions on a so called free people.

 

Letter to the ITC about their policy on "adult" material.

I am familiar with the ITC programme code and I understand that the ITC code
does not allow "R18" adult material to be shown at any time on any channel
(whether broadcast from the UK or elsewhere).

I have the following questions:

1. In the code, you state that subscription adult channels are allowed to
   show material which is "stronger" and that details are available on request.
   Could you please tell me exactly what is/is not allowed on such channels ?
2. Am I correct in my belief that the content of video-on-demand services
   will not be regulated by OFCOM ? I know that you don't represent OFCOM but
   I'm assuming that OFCOM's content policy will be based on the ITC programme
   code.
3. In response to a similar query from another viewer (published on
   www.melonfarmers.co.uk), it was stated that: "We also know from our own
   research that, while it is becoming more liberal in this respect, public
   opinion does not generally favour so great a change to the limits of sexual
   portrayal on television." I disagree. In your own research, you found that
   while most people are not interested in watching "hardcore" material on TV;
   the majority of viewers would not be concerned if it was made available to
   those that wish to see it, provided sufficient protections are put in place.
   
   Well, it's quite clear that there are many people who wish to view such
   material (as is demonstrated by the huge sales of "R18" videos/DVDs.
   Furthermore, it's clear that the vast majority of viewers and, indeed, the
   media, are completely oblivious to what is shown even now. For example, it
   is a commonly held belief that explicit sex scenes can never be shown on TV.
   As you know, FilmFour have shown many such scenes and the press have not
   paid any attention. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that specialist
   subscription channels do perform exactly the function required of them.
   Namely, to provide a specialist service which is effectively invisible to
   all but those with an interest in it.
4. Finally, I know that the ITC is not obliged to publish details of
   proscription recommendations but, in the spirit of freedom of information,
   could you please let me know of any such recommendations ? Furthermore, do
   you intend to recommend the proscription of SCT (a channel which is
   transmitting on a satellite that can be received through "Sky" dishes) ?

 

You raise four specific questions, which I will answer in turn.

1. The precise content of adults channels is a matter between the ITC and
   the licensees. However, in general terms, material is expected to be no
   stronger than that allowed in "18" videos, as produced for the adult market.
2. The content of video-on-demand services will, in future, be subject to
   self-regulation by the industry, through the Video-on-Demand Association.
   Ultimately, it will be up to the association to decide its own standards.
3. Public opinion on the portrayal of sex on television is not always east
   to assess. As you point out, many people are unfamiliar with the type of
   material available on encrypted channels, let alone "hardcore". It is
   certainly true, however, that there is no significant groundswell of opinion
   in favour of liberalisation of adult services. Much is made about security
   now available on encrypted channels. In reality, the PIN systems available
   to the vast majority of multi-channel viewers are rather limited.
4. The ITC has recommended that the SCT channel should be proscribed under
   section 177 of the Broadcasting Act.

 

Interesting that John Glover thinks that the precise details of state censorship is not a matter that concerns the public.  So not only do they refuse to justify their censorship, they won't even tell us exactly what they do censor.

Such arrogance has surely no place in a modern rights based society. They are abusing their authority.

Channel 4 Alias 'Censors'

I watched tonight's airing of Alias Episode 1 on C4, and I can now offer you the following details of what was cut!

In total, there were approximately 5m 35s of cuts! Of these, the longest was about 1m 49s, and the shortest was just 3s. In total, some 14 separate edits were made to this one episode!

The cuts were, as follows:

1- After opening credits scene, we go straight into the opening shot of Sydney being tortured. Whole sequence was removed by C4. (1m 01s)

2- About 20m into the episode, after Syd tells Danny in the shower who she works for, a long-shot of rear-only nudity (male and female) is removed, along with the ensuing argument, and details showing that Danny hits Syd around the face, who then proceeds to cry. Plus, more torture scene removal. (1m 49s)

3- The discovery of Danny's body in the bath has been cut, to remove bloody shots, and to edit all sight of Sydney screaming horrendously. (21s)

4- More torture scene removal, including scenes of side-effects of the drugs Syd has been given to quell her pain. Also removal of her fake confessional to the torturer. (1m 47s)

5- In the car-park, Sydney is attacked by a gunman. Excessive shots of gunfire against Sydney and various cars have been removed. (9s)

6- When Sydney attacks the gunman, she doesn't just knock him out. A long scene of fighting has been removed, including repeated blows to the head, face, upper body, legs, and headbutts. (37s)

7- More torture scene removal. (50s)

8- The break-in has been edited. When Sydney is knocked unconcious, after picking the lock and breaking her lock-picks, more footage has been removed to edit out all scenes of her being knocked out by a Taiwanese soldier, and her capture/torture. (13s)

9- During the torture scene, Sydney headbutts him, and then crushes him under the chair. She crushes his body brutally, in the uncut scene. (6s)

10- Sydeny then handcuffs him to the chair, but proceeds to torture him, and has a fight with the guards. More edits for fighting. (Head blows, karate chops, etc, etc.) (33s)

11- Sydney escapes with the gadget from the laboratory. Excessive gunfire and the resulting gas-main explosion was edited out. (13s)

As you can see once again, C4 have edited an adult show for the kiddies, and have made it worse for adult viewers. The only bonus to watching this show on C4, is the fact they are airing it in Widescreen. Other than that, a big 1 out of 10 for effort. This may actually be worse than the "Angel" Season 1 fiasco!!

Lots of letters and phonecalls to the ITC please!!!

Vault of Cuts

Letter to Channel 4

Why did you broadcast the cut version of Vault of Horror when it was broadcast in the early hours of the morning and the uncut version has been avaiable on video for some years. Was it an oversight? I thought that channel 4 had a policy of showing films uncut whenever possible.

Note to Melon Farmers

If you Melon Farmers are interested in the version of Vault of Horror that Channel 4 did show check the Internet Movie database - it was the cut English Version that they broadcast. As stated in my original e-mail the uncut version has been available - through Vipco - for some time.

 

All films shown on C4 have to be passed by the BBFC. Whilst every effort will be made to screen the most original version if it is not available the next best version will be broadcast. We are sorry to hear that you were not satisfied with the version shown.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us at Channel 4, we welcome viewer's comments, critical or otherwise.

Information Officer