Opinion

Televisually Transmitted Infections

Responding to a previous letter from Ian:

The news story that gave rise to this correspondence is the CRISIS in the sexual health of young people.

Of course it is true that sexual infections have been around for centuries but not at a rate of infection currently being experienced by the health service. It is surely evident from the "crisis" that giving way to unrestrained instinct in sexual matters is a primary cause and anything which acts as an encouragement is a secondary cause.

I remain of the view that film and television because casual sexual relations are portrayed so frequently, act as such a secondary cause. Plainly you do not agree with my solution to the problem. What you need to show, therefore, and in a rather more rational and convincing manner, is how promoting and glamorising "basic desires and instincts" in the media will reverse the rate of STIs.

Perhaps you could explain, also, why the Government is planning a new sexual health campaign targeted at young people using, primarily, television. If it had no influence at all why should they expend huge sums of tax payers money on such a futile objective? It remains to be seen what this will achieve if its message is constantly undermined by film and drama programmes presenting the behaviour and lifestyles giving the opposite message.

 

I take your point and indeed, I was not, and never have, condoned the promotion of promiscuous behaviour. I was simply making the point that this behaviour has always existed and that the media have very little to do with promoting this.

If you had understood me correctly (sorry if I wasn't clear), you would have realised that what I am saying is that we should not cover-up the fact that people do behave in this manner and, if we are to stem the current tide then we must be more open, frank and honest about our sexuality and sexual behaviour. Until people realise that it is their own actions that have created this crisis then how will they ever know what they need to do to stop it?

I'm extremely relieved to hear that the Government are planning a health campaign. I only hope that this is as frank and honest as it can be, and does not succumb to standards of 'taste and decency'. The younger generations are a little more 'hardened' in their attitude to sexual imagery than 'we' were 20 years ago during the AIDS crisis. I fear if the message is not hard-hitting enough, it may not get through.

Also, do you not feel that programme makers should promote the idea of safe-sex, rather than trying to instill virtues that many younger people just cannot relate to and are unlikely to aspire to (i.e. during their teenage years and early adulthood)? This is after all when most people are extremely sexually active and at their most vulnerable.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on some of the finer issues. As long as we can, through our various (if opposite) methodologies, convince people to behave more responsibly then, the result should be the same and we will hopefully save many thousands of people a great deal of misery. My greatest concern is that every day more and more become infected and your method is simply too slow (and possibly too subtle) to make any immediate impact. Over the long term your proposal may have an effect however, the historical evidence suggests otherwise. Of course we could adopt a Sharia style of law and outlaw sex out of wedlock, that could work too.

Governmental No to Hardcore

International Broadcasting Department of Culture, Media and Sport

Thank you for your email of 15th May in which you outline concerns relating to sexually explicit material on UK adult subscription services.

The UK's position is that there is no place for hardcore pornography on UK television.

It should be made clear that the ITC is an independent body, that is responsible for licensing UK licensed broadcasters, to ensure that they adhere to UK broadcasting legislation and to their licence conditions as set out in the detailed codes drawn up by the ITC. The Government does not intervene in programme matters, either on scheduling arrangements or on content. Responsibility for what is broadcast on television rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies.

 

Dear Mr Fox,

If there is no place for hardcore material on UK TV, why, in the recent ITC survey (The Public's View 2002, Table 56(2)), did 76% of those persons interviewed agree "if people want to pay extra to see particularly explicit sexual material they should be allowed to do so"? It is clear that 76% of the public believe such material should be available on specialist subscription TV channels.

Under the Broadcasting Act 1990 Section 12(2b), the ITC are to give 'full consideration' to the results of such (audience) research. Indeed, these surveys are required by law not only to assess the ITC's performance but also to gain an understanding of the public's requirements in choice of programming.

Under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the ITC are able to 'make different provision in the code for different cases or circumstances'.

I believe the evidence speaks for itself, the public DO want such material to be available and the ITC are totally ignoring their responsibilities to the public and the law. The time has come for such provisions to be made to allow the public to view sexually explicit material on adult subscription services.

I might add that the DCMS claim to ensure 'the broadcast framework allows Freedom of Expression'. I assume Freedom of Expression is as described in Article 10 of the HRA 1998? On the grounds that there is absolutely no proof to suggest explicit sexual material can or does harm health or morals and, "any restriction of a fundamental right must be accompanied by strict justification" (edict from ECHR), there is no justification for the DCMS to allow such an abuse of Human Rights to continue by the broadcast regulators.

By the 'UK' I suppose you mean the Government? You cannot be referring to the public as their position has been clear and has been expressed to the ITC since 1997. The UK does want hardcore material on TV and it's place is on specialist adult subscription TV channels.

The Government were totally aware when the HRA 1998 was ratified into UK legislation that hardcore pornography would become legal and, much of the UK's existing 'obscenity' law was non-compliant and would become obsolete. The BBFC have had to modernise their guidelines surrounding such material, why have the broadcast regulators not done the same?

 

 To the Human Rights Office at the Home Office

I am particularly disappointed that the Unit has not fully addressed some issues regarding the terms of Article 10 with respect to television broadcasting.

I have sent several letters to Patricia Hodgson of the ITC, regarding the ITC's Code and the ban on explicit sexual material being available on specialist UK 'adult' channels. Ms Hodgson claims that the ITC Code has undergone a 'rigorous review' and was found to be compliant with the HRA. However, this simply cannot be the case. In Groppera v Switzerland (1990), the ECHR clarified the terms under which 'States shall not be prevented from licensing...'. The ECHR reviewed the history of this sentence and concluded that, when it was introduced in 1949, it was intended to allow States ONLY to licence broadcasters for technical and logistical reasons (i.e. for the protection of State broadcasting monopolies e.g. the BBC). In the same case, the ECHR also stated quite clearly that It is undisputed that Article 10 does not permit the restriction of broadcasting any legal material.

Ms Hodgson made the following statement in support of their Code: Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, in dealing with Freedom of Expression, acknowledges that ‘this article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises’. It goes on to state that the right is subject to ‘conditions, restrictions or penalties’ which include ‘for the protection of health or morals’. It is clear that restrictions on the content of television services are compatible with the requirements of the act."

Clearly, as the High Court could not find cause to uphold the BBFC's claim that explicit sexual material could damage 'health or morals', and such material became legally available in the UK in the year 2000, the ITC's position is totally without substance or justification. Any elements of the ITC's Code, which set out to restrict the broadcast of any legal material, simply cannot be in compliance with Article 10. The ITC (and the Government) have, and are, misusing/misinterpreting this clause to apply restrictions on the broadcast of certain material (via Broadcasting Act 1990 and the upcoming Communications Bill). Clauses in these Acts, which apply restrictions on the grounds of 'taste and decency' or 'generally accepted standards', are not compliant.

I have raised these issues with Stuart Fox of the DCMS, as one of their aims is to ensure 'the broadcast framework ensures freedom of expression'. In response, Mr Fox stated (without any justification) that "The UK does not want hardcore on TV". I wrote back to him on 17 June 2003 pointing out that, since 1997, the ITC's own surveys, The Public's View, have shown that at least 75% of the population agree that 'people should be able to view particularly explicit sexual material' (Table 56,2). Clearly, there is no argument on the ground of 'national appreciation' that access to explicit sexual material on television offends against public 'taste and decency' or is beyond 'generally accepted standards'. I am still awaiting Mr Fox's reply...

The BBFC were completely taken aback by the public's relaxed attitude toward explicit sexual material, but it seems that this message did not promulgate far enough. I hope that someone finally realises that the UK DOES want hardcore on TV and, moreover, current UK broadcasting legislation is in breech of Article 10. I am particularly concerned as my MP, Brian White, told me that none of these issues were raised when the Comms Bill passed through the House recently.

I trust you will look into this and that subscribers to UK 'adult' channels will be able to view explicit sexual programming in the very near future.

Licensed to Constrain

My partners and I have bought a sex shop in Hull. We have taken legal advice, and this is what it consisted of:

1. Do not display (even box covers) of any R18 titles vhs or dvd until you have been told you have a license.
2. Make sure that clothing easily outweighs both toys and magazines in your displays.
3. Do not advertise until you have a license.

The council have charged us 7348.00 non-refundable for the privilege of applying for a license! Should we be lucky enough to be granted a license, then we will be charged the same sum each and every year, starting with this year! I am told, (but have as yet not seen) that there is a list as long as your arm of what we can and cannot do once a license is issued, for instance no more than 7 people are allowed on the premises at any one time......so if the 8th wants to spend 200 we will have to turn him away!

Over the past 2 weeks I have had in excess of 500 people wanting to purchase video & dvd titles only to have to tell them to come back once we have a license, they are very understanding but also very disappointed.

Don't know what trials and tribulations other shops are having in this censorial nation of ours, but I would love to hear from any other frustrated sextrepeneurs.

Tim

tim@webwiseservices.com

Unlawful Acts

Dear BBFC,

Could the BBFC explain why they only ever enforce cuts of 'Unlawful Acts' in sexually explicit R18 videos?

There are after all any number of films passed at other categories which contain unlawful acts such as; arson; assault; bank robbery; counterfeiting; drug dealing; extortion; fraud; gun running; hijacking; incest; jailbreaks; kidnapping; larceny; murder; prostitution; rape; etc. etc.

Compared to these obviously criminal acts, which pass in the main uncut, it would seem disproportionate to ban or censor material because it contained scenes of outdoor sex or sex which appears to be in a public place, as you have cited several times.

Surely you don't believe adult viewers would be influenced to commit such acts just because they appeared in a film? Couldn't you safeguard the public by placing a warning on the video that such acts are illegal in the UK?

Why is it when actors engage in real sex do you 'put the blinkers on' and apply such literal interpretations of your guidelines?

Also, how do you justify leaving violent rape scenes, which are clearly outdoors, in films like Irreversible and Baise Moi? And, in light of these decisions, how do you justify banning a fantasy 'Hentai' cartoon like Tentacle of Darkness, which contains no real people let alone real sex?

I do not believe the public would consider cartoons to be in the same category as live action non-consensual sex. Why you have chosen to ignore your guidelines on two occasions involving live action and then enforce them when they couldn't possibly apply is very odd indeed.

I find some of your decisions to be bizarre and extremely inconsistent, one might even say random. I hope you can shed some light on why you believe any cuts should be required at 18 or R18 and indeed, why some adult animated material is deemed unclassifiable when it couldn't possibly contain any real unlawful acts or non-consensual sex?
 

The key to addressing your concern is the important distinction between fantasy and reality.

The Board does pass fictional representations of unlawful acts, including (with varying detail) all the examples that you have listed and more. Such fictional representations often play a significant role in films at all classification categories and, frankly, have done so since the Board was established more than 90 years ago. I'm sure you will appreciate that really killing someone is unlawful, but that pretending to kill someone and portraying that on film, is not. To avoid confusion it may be worth pointing out that in sexually explicit R18 videos the sex is real sex, not a fictional representation of sex.

The Board will not pass anything which constitutes a real illegal act (under UK law) which is taking place in the UK and commissioned by a filmmaker. The Board can pass the portrayal of an illegal act where this
is justified by a legitimate context, for example, a documentary in which the illegal acts themselves have already been dealt with by the authorities. Such as released CCTV footage of an assault.

Sex in a public place in the UK is an illegal act. A public place may or may not be outdoors, just as an outdoor location may or may not be public. Sex in an outdoor location is not automatically cut. On the contrary the Board will actively seek assurances that the location was either outside the UK or that appropriate precautions were taken to ensure that no member of the public could be an unwitting witness. Where such assurances cannot be given or where onscreen evidence confirms the location is public (such as sex on a bus travelling down the local High Street), the Board will require cuts. In such cases it is of no consequence whether adult viewers would be influenced to commit the illegal acts themselves or not.

Additionally the Board can not pass acts (whether illegal or not) which are deemed to be obscene under current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The Board consults closely with the appropriate agencies to determine that which would be subject to prosecution under the legislation. The Board does not pass any material which, on the basis of the advice given, would be subject to prosecution for obscenity.

The above should address your confusion about Irreversible and Baise Moi. Neither of which depicted real rape (even though Baise Moi contained some real sex) and neither of which was filmed in the UK.

As for animation, the Board does not cut or reject this on the grounds that it depicts real unlawful acts or real non-consensual sex. The distinction between fantasy and reality naturally comes into play here. However the Board does maintain a strict policy on sexual violence. Depictions of sexual violence (whether real people or animations) which eroticise or endorse the sexual assault are very unlikely to be acceptable because of the potential anti-social response of some likely viewers. In such a fictional representation it is no longer a question of legality, it is a question of potential harm which the Guidelines address.

I trust the above will shed some light for you and make the Board's decisions appear less bizarre.

 

Thank you very much for clarifying the Board's position on unlawful acts. I'm glad we both understand there is a distinction between reality and fantasy.

I'm still uneasy/unsure/unclear with the Board's decision to refuse a certificate to Spy of Darkness. Issues of reality and fantasy aside, I have seen this cartoon and I did not find that it condoned or glamorised sexual violence in any way, far from it. None of the rape victims appeared to enjoy the experience, all protested, screamed and struggled. The beast was portrayed as evil and psychotic, something to be feared, hunted and killed not worshipped and revered.

Throughout the history of animation, cartoons have been used to depict fantasy sex and violence (not always together) where live action would not be acceptable or feasible. Isn't the whole purpose of Hentai to allow normally unlawful acts to be portrayed in an erotic context? I believe the distinction between reality and fantasy must be applied whether or not the material has an erotic effect. No one believes the events and characters are real and I find it very difficult to agree that this type of material could be dangerous in the way you suggest. We are talking about adult entertainment after all and adults are more than capable of making this distinction. What type of individuals or "likely viewers" are actually likely to be affected by this material? My views on rape being a most heinous crime have not changed although I have seen many Hentai cartoons, all of which depict some form of non-consensual sex (it is part of the genre).

I understand the dangers of portraying such scenes in explicit detail with live performers and how easily this could be seen as condoning such actions. However, I think the distinction between live action and fantasy must be applied. Could I ask, what aspect of the Spy of Darkness the Board found to be eroticising, was it the rape scenes themselves, the reaction of the victims etc? If it is found not to be the actions themselves then how can the Board justify their claim that this cartoon eroticises these acts? Could the Board also elaborate on what the "potential anti-social response of some likely viewers" might actually be and, what sort of proportion or section of the population are you referring to? What evidence is there to suggest that the depiction of non-consensual sex in cartoons can incite similar behaviour in real life? It seems to me as if the Board have assumed that the people who enjoy Hentai have some fundamental flaw or potential to do harm, I doubt the Board are qualified or have any evidence to draw such conclusions. Surely this material would have been banned years ago in Japan if this were the case?

 

The Board's justification for rejecting SPY OF DARKNESS is given on our website (www.bbfc.co.uk) under the relevant record for that work. Because you are already familiar with this explanation I do not propose to go over our rationale again. You are, of course, entitled to your view that SPY OF DARKNESS does not eroticise sexual violence, but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point. In the Board's view scenes showing women being raped in pornographically explicit detail (cartoon or not) are likely to have effect of arousing some male viewers. The Board's specific problem with the scenes in SPY OF DARKNESS was that the rapes are shown in pornographic detail, with emphasis on forcible stripping, female nudity (including breasts and genitals), penetration, and on the arousal of the attacker. Furthermore, the female villain who watches the rapes becomes aroused herself, commenting that the victims are - and indeed should be - 'responding'.

It is not whether it is 'real' or not that s the issue - it is the effect that such scenes have on viewers that concerns the Board. The research evidence (Donnerstein, Malamuth, Penrod, Linz, etc) suggests that this kind of depiction may have a harmful effect upon certain viewers and, under the Video Recordings Act, we are obliged to consider such harm when reaching a decision. Whether or not the victims enjoy it (although, again, we would argue that some of them do), is actually fairly incidental. The rapes themselves are depicted in an eroticised fashion and it is the viewer who is invited to enjoy them. No time is given to the victims' perspective and there is no attempt to suggest that the rapes are horrible.

Our research also shows that - harm issues aside - the public is very concerned by this kind of eroticised and trivialised depiction of rape and supports the Board's current policy of disallowing it at '18'.

I hope this makes our position clear, even if you do not agree with it.

 

Let me get this straight, the Board have banned this particular cartoon because it contains 'eroticised' rape scenes and, studies by research psychologists have shown that there may be an adverse effect on *some* people viewing such material.

Please bear with me for a moment. There are several major problems with all psychological studies, these being: 1. by their very nature they are not 'double blind' scientifically controlled, quantifiable experiments 2. the researchers do not *know* how the human brain functions, they can only theorise and draw reasonable conclusions 3. life experiences and personality traits in the test subjects greatly affect the outcome of the perceived *effects*

I do not doubt that someone's attitude could be affected by seeing a rape in a film and a psychologist would be able to test for such an effect. To suggest that this will somehow cause a *normal* person's personality, moral values etc. to be altered in such a way as to make them a threat to society is by no means certain and in my opinion extremely unlikely. I am not familiar with the particular studies you are referring to so I do not know what the long or short-term effects, if any, might have been however, as you state this may only affect *some* people there is a very real possibility that these individuals already had a predisposition and, the fact they saw such images had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their subsequent actions or reactions.

A recent study into the effects of violent lyrics in music showed them to have an adverse effect on the test subjects. These effects are not surprising. We all listen to music and indeed know that it does change our mood but, to suggest listening to violent lyrics will turn someone into a murderer is utter rubbish. Does listening to love songs turn people in hopeless romantics or nymphomaniacs? It is a well proven phenomena that whenever sexualised images/lyrics etc. are mixed with violent or negative imagery, the negative effects are often enhanced however, it is important to realise that this is only in the *perception* of the test subject, arousal simply causes heightened responses.

We must be very careful when interpreting the findings of psychological studies. The issues of causality are never clear in these studies. Does Heavy Metal music turn people into misogynists or, do misogynistic men like Heavy Metal music? - The psychologists can show a correlation in this example but, they cannot say if one *is* the cause of the other.

Because such studies can never be carried out under strict scientific conditions (i.e. double blind testing, where both the test subjects and the researchers do not know what the test subject has been exposed to) the results can never be trusted 100%. The researchers can give off subconscious signals etc. depending on what response they expect to see from the subject, they can often *see* a response where there is no response. Also, we can never be certain that the subject is responding in a certain way *because* of the material they have been exposed to, there could be other influences, a childhood memory, moral or spiritual beliefs etc. The actual subject response questionnaires/tests etc. are based on a theoretical model of how the mind works, there is absolutely no proof that the mind works in the way the researchers believe or that the tests show what the researchers say they show. This is not like pouring sulphuric acid on iron filings and testing for hydrogen gas. There is no real quantifiable extent to these effects either, I mean, you can't say someone was 50% more likely to cut someone's ear off after watch Reservoir Dogs for instance, the best you get is that the subjects showed an increased tendency toward 'x', 'y' or 'z'.

Psychology is not a science, for the most part it is guesswork and at best it only shows that our emotions are indeed affected in response to external stimuli. To draw deep and profound meaning from such studies is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. Most of the effects observed are generated by subconscious survival instincts, our most basic human responses. Is it really so surprising that exposing someone to a scene of violence provokes an aggressive response? These studies go some way into understanding why people react the way they do in certain circumstances and some of the results are interesting but, to suggest the effect of a certain stimuli will affect the whole of society or bring an end to civilisation as we know it is nonsense. Some studies have brought Gangster Rap under the same sort of scare mongering which took place in the fifties regarding the effects of Rock n Roll on teenagers, well, we're still here and the fifties are now regarded as the golden age of pop.

I did ask you to give me some idea of the proportion of people you believe might be adversely affected by the Spy Of Darkness, if you don't know exactly, can you make a reasonable guess? Could you also give me some idea in which other countries this, or any other Hentai cartoons, have been banned on similar grounds?

Can I just raise one final point. You say that "The Board's specific problem with the scenes in SPY OF DARKNESS was that the rapes are shown in pornographic detail, with emphasis on forcible stripping, female nudity (including breasts and genitals), penetration, and on the arousal of the attacker". I did ask in my original query why exactly the same detail was allowed in Baise Moi using real actors no less but then banned in a cartoon!? Also, it seems the Board may have missed the point that the female villain's comments are intended to show us that she is a real 'sicko' and needs to be dealt with in the same way as the beast (up until this point we only know she is a international thief or terrorist). I also recall that the 3 heroines are assigned to kill the beast specifically because it is raping women and, that they also kill a bunch of gang-rapists in their pursuit of the beast's location. The heroines' reaction watching the video of the activities of the rape-gang is one of total horror, doesn't this, along with their mission, support the view that rape is a bad thing? I think these points just go to show how a slightly different skew in perception can change the whole context of a movie and whether or not the Board will pass or fail a work. Can you honestly say that after watching this movie anyone would actually be incited to commit rape, that is what you are suggesting, is it not? Do you believe any of those psychologists you mention would stake their reputation on any normal person actually committing such a crime as a direct consequence of seeing this movie?
 

Whilst we would agree with you that the majority of media effects research is rather doubtful in its conclusions - for every piece that suggests one thing, another piece suggests the other - we do find the evidence on the effects of sexually violent material far more compelling. Obviously you do not and you are, of course, free to disagree. However, the Board is required by law to consider whether a video might cause 'harm' to viewers. Incidentally, this does not mean that a viewer would necessarily have to go out and commit a rape in direct response to a particular video. What we are concerned with is the cumulative effect that passing such material routinely may have on the attitudes - and possibly behaviour - of some men.

As for your comparison with BAISE-MOI, the rape scene in BAISE-MOI shows rape as an horrific act of violation. Neither the victims nor the attackers derive any pleasure from the attack. Nor is the attack shown in a pornographic fashion, emphasising female nudity in a manner calculated to excite male viewers. At the one point where we did feel BAISE-MOI strayed into potentially erotic territory (the close up penetration shot), we cut it. Furthermore, BAISE-MOI contained only one such scene, which was easily dealt with by a cut. SPY OF DARKNESS, by contrast, is full of rape scenes, involving close up shots of penetration, shots of women's breasts being sucked and licked, fluid dripping from the victim's vaginas, etc. Indeed, the way in which the scenes were drawn corresponds very closely (in terms of the angles used, etc) to hardcore pornography. Perhaps you do not find this arousing, but that does not mean that other men won't.

You ask us whether we honestly feel that this film might incite rape. Our honest answer is that, yes, this film might encourage some men to be turned on by rape, which may affect subsequent behaviour. You may find our position hard to accept but we also find it hard to accept your view that this film somehow constitutes a vivid evocation of the horror and immorality of rape. Just because a victim is not shown to enjoy being raped does not mean that the manner in which the scene is filmed cannot be erotic.

We know that you will not agree with our position on this work but we hope this gives you a better understanding of what we do and why. It is in fact relatively unusual for the Board to insist on cuts at the '18' level - the majority of cuts at '18' are made at distributors' request so as to avoid an 'R18' rating. However, when sex and violence are mixed in an eroticised fashion the Board still has concerns even at the adult level. Our research shows that the majority of the UK public - who are perhaps surprisingly liberal on other matters nowadays - agree with this position. The mixture of sex and violence in an erotic context is also something that continues to trouble the courts so we do not believe our strict position is unreasonable.

 

Having read the various entries on this subject, I feel it should be mentioned that in one way the BBFC is not at fault. Under current law regarding films on video they are required to consider the possibility of a child watching the film, even if it has an adult classification and whether a child would be adversely affected by what they see.

Should we not be directing our efforts towards the people who created this ridiculous restriction, instead of at the BBFC, who ultimately have very little freedom to do anything other than cut anything above Disney level in case someone is upset, somewhere, at some time.

It is well past time that our glorious leadership recognised the simple fact that adults have the ability to separate real life from fantasy entertainment, the normal human instinct to behave in a lawful fashion and not commit acts they know to be wrong, and are ultimately accountable for their own actions should they break any law. People commit crimes because they choose to, not because of a film.

 

Paul,

I totally agree. I made the same point to the BBFC saying, "the BBFC cannot and will not be held responsible for the actions of adults". They responded with the "we are required to prevent 'any harm which may be caused'" bollox. Even the HRA allows for restrictions on the basis of harm, the problem is with the 'evidence' the BBFC use to 'prove' that harm.

I wouldn't mind so much but their 'Sexual Violence Media Effects' report makes it quite clear that "sex offenders do not normally view pornographic material", it goes on to say "sex offenders are more aroused by sexually violent imagery and more so when it mimics their own activities". This was measured and verified by whether or not the offender masturbated after viewing such material. You can read this two ways but, it seems to me that if sex offenders could wank off more, they'd be less likely to seek out a victim to enact their sick fantasies. The point being, if the BBFC allowed sexually violent material they might actually be preventing some harm! Pity they haven't got the brains to put 2 and 2 together...

All the criminology research I found showed that sexually violent imagery doesn't create sex offenders. Something like 66% of sex offenders were themselves abused as children. Alcohol and drug abuse account for most other 'date rape' type offences with the remainder suffering some mental/emotional disorders.

I also found a doozy today, the claim by James Check, that "pornography induces a belief in 'rape myths'", was discovered in a survey of 14 year olds can you believe! How, where and when this was corrupted to become 'some men' I'm not sure but, it certainly casts a pretty big shadow over all of the BBFC's 'evidence'.

All the studies into 'violent pornography' are actually studies in 'vanilla' hardcore porn. The 'violent' was added by the US Feminists Against Pornography movement when they proclaimed "pornography is violence against women" in the 1980's. This was soon corrupted to produce the term 'violent pornography' and again, it seriously undermines the validity of the material in the BBFC report. Indeed, about 70% of the data in their report actually relates to the imagery we are allowed to see at R18 which, we all know to be harmless!

 

To the BBFC

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you,  I've come up with some rather disturbing findings which I've tried to summarise below. A long-term survey during the 1990's in Japan revealed a sustained and steady reduction of sexual offences amongst those who would be expected to be 'most affected' by pornographic material (i.e.
adolescents).

The most recent crime figures in the UK show an 11% increase in violent crime and a further 9% increase in sexual violence. If the Board are successfully 'protecting' people why do these figures keep increasing? As I say, the conclusion from the study in Japan showed a marked decrease in sexual offences (some 83%!) following relaxation of their anti-pornography laws. I don't believe for one moment that 13 year old girls (which the study centred on) would stop reporting or, indeed, could hide the effects of such attacks. Your suggestion that these were simply going unreported is based on pure speculation and is actually addressed in the report as not being the case. Bearing in mind that 'Manga' and 'Hentai' form the vast majority of teenage pornographic entertainment in Japan, the conclusion that such material has a beneficial effect overall cannot be ignored and, should not be ruled out because some flawed psychological studies can be interpreted to show this material MIGHT have detrimental effects on 'some men'.
The full report on Japanese porn effects is available here http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html and a similar study of European trends here http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pd

None of the evidence the Board is relying on shows that these supposed effects are long-term nor do they show ANY correlation between sexual violence in society and sexual violence in film (in fact they show the opposite - your report states 'sex offenders do not view (violent) pornography'). In this respect the evidence is NIL and, on the basis of the effects observed in Japan and Europe, one can only logically conclude that; when people feel excited by sexual violence in film, some other psychological mechanism swings into play and subsequently prevents the individual enacting such behaviour in life. The few people who do not respond in this way are probably totally unstable and as likely to attack someone whether 'fired' by what they see in a film as not. I might also make the point that the Board should not, indeed cannot, safeguard the public from the maladjusted individuals in our society, to try to do so would mean banning any and all media which has ever provoked anyone (or which could provoke anyone) into committing an illegal act (which covers just about everything from cornflake ads to news items).

As an extreme example, I do not think your comment about paedophiles was 'glib', it is a fair point. However, consider whether showing (simulated) molestation to kids might increase their awareness and willingness to report such offences against them and, whether such material might satisfy the needs of a few sick individuals? We know that many paedophiles photograph and film their acts and that other paedophiles 'feed' off this material. We also know that most paedophiles are 'friends and family', they are known to both victim and parents and they have some leverage/control over their victim ("it's our secret"). Studies in the US have found that 66% of sex offenders were themselves abused as children. I know this is an extremely sensitive area and it provokes extreme emotions but, to combat such a cycle of abuse, people must stay rational and accept that the answers may not always be the most 'acceptable'. The question is, which is more acceptable, child abuse, or the use of some 'questionable' material to help combat child abuse? The answer may not be as distasteful as allowing 'child porn' (simulated or not) to become widely available but, simply to allow more people access to more, and far healthier, sexual outlets e.g. banishing notions that 'pornography' is dangerous and, more openness and acceptance of our own sexual NEEDS. Neurologists say we are 'hard-wired' to reproduce, we need access to sexual outlets. It is becoming apparent that the stigma associated with 'sexual desire' being something 'dirty' or 'evil', which many religions seem to suggest, is damaging and extremely unhealthy.

On a similar note, it has been suggested that the Japanese 'fixation' with hairless bodies was the reason teenage rape was so high in Japan before Hentai etc. became more widely available. There is little doubt in my mind (or that of the researchers) that the 'schoolgirl' scenarios in Hentai cartoons and Japanese pornography has contributed directly to the reduction in offences involving teenagers. I'm certain exposing young Japanese men to scenes involving young girls in rape scenarios has exactly the same psychological effect as it does on western men, the point is, what happens to that excitement/aggression in a 'normal' (i.e. non-laboratory) environment...? What the 'Media Effects' studies uncover could simply be sexual frustration brought about by the conditions of the experiments - fact: we cannot measure anything without affecting the thing we are trying to measure. I've maintained all along that these are not truly scientific experiments. The test subject KNOWS exactly what they have been exposed to and, no matter how carefully the testing stage is disguised, the subjects know they will be tested at some point. Conscious responses re 'rape myths' and 'likelihood to rape' cannot be fully trusted. Furthermore, as subconscious responses are exactly what the researchers are looking for, 'subconsciously' the subject may know they are being tested...again their responses cannot be viewed as reliable. If we've learned anything about the how the mind works over the last 100 years it is that it is far more complicated than we can imagine. Aromas and colours can produce just as 'significant' changes in behaviour as anything observed in these media effects studies, and far more reliably too.

The underlying fact that everyone seems to be overlooking is that all the depictions in film/cartoon are pure fantasy. I would not argue with the Board banning or cutting REAL sexual violence but, the arguments against fantasy violence (sexual or otherwise) seem to be non-existent (I believe Sir Quentin stated as much in an interview about the violence in Kill Bill but then went on to say he was trying to 'stamp out' sexual violence).
Distinctions over 'titillation' etc. are meaningless and just reinforce the 'pure fantasy' argument. Rape is an act of violence, it requires the victim to be overpowered and subdued by whatever means necessary. Therefore, the fantasy depictions in the Spy Of Darkness etc. do not and cannot be seen to reflect reality and are very unlikely to provoke copy-cat re-enactment.
What scenes of this nature can do however, is fulfil a 'rape-fantasy' many men (and women I might add) have, without causing anyone any actual harm.
In this respect they could and, based on the findings in Japan and Europe, most likely do have a beneficial effect on the instances of sexual assault quite contrary to the Board's understandable concerns. I might add that Spain and Portugal have shown no adverse social effects since they adopted a position of non-censorship.

Throughout the course of our correspondence I have raised several issues which have been largely ignored or refuted by yourselves. I would however like to raise these in summary form and hope that the Board would consider these points very carefully when interpreting the law with respect to 'protecting the public' in assessing various works. (Please also see some further points and issues in the post script to this letter). My issues are:

1. By removing graphic violence and humiliation, the Board 'makes acceptable' horrific scenes of sexual violence. What effect does the Board think this has on people's perception of rape as a violent and heinous act?

1.1 With respect to I Spit On Your Grave, I saw this uncut in 1983 and found it to be an extremely powerful film despite the low-budget appearance. In my perception, the rape scene justified the woman's subsequent actions.
However, although I have not seen the BBFC version, I can only imagine that removing 'violence and humiliation' from the rape scene has shifted the viewer's perceptions and may paint the woman's actions in the wrong light.
Can the Board be certain that the cuts made have not altered the viewer's perception of the victim and her methods of revenge? Would a viewer of the BBFC version agree with the tag-line '...no court would convict her', which was quite believable of the original version?

2 The Board also remove scenes and ban works containing 'eroticised' sexual violence. In the BBFC report 'Media Effects', there is made mention to Donnerstein's comment about the statistical relationship between the measured effects of this type of material being "more certain" than those of smoking related illness. The report also states that 'he has since softened his opinion' however, Donnerstein said he "could have easily got the same results from having the men ride a bike for 20 minutes", in other words, the statistical relationship was no more sound than that between teachers' pay in the US and lung cancer in the UK (another demonstrable statistical 'relationship'). Despite Donnerstein's revelation about the true nature of these 'effects' and, the evidence from Japan of lowering sexual offences and, that Donnerstein and Lintz found the effects of "violence alone to be more than that of scenes of sexually explicit violence or scenes containing just explicit sex", why do the Board still insist that 'eroticised sexual violence' is of most concern?

2.1 With respect to Baise Moi, the Board removed a penetration shot during a violent and humiliating rape scene on the grounds that this 'eroticised' the scene. I have seen the uncut version of this film and I fail to see how anyone could claim or even suggest that this shot was in the least bit 'erotic' or would instil any erotic feelings in the viewer. Isn't it the case that this was actually quite shocking, completely cold and callous, devoid of any feeling at all and that neither party showed any emotion at all let alone any enjoyment from it? I therefore cannot agree with your explanation or reasons for cutting that particular scene and must assume it was based simply on the sight of a penis entering a vagina which, I'm sure most people would not find 'erotic' in (or out) of the context of that scene. Are the Board suggesting that the mere sight of a penis entering a vagina is 'erotic'? Or, are the Board suggesting that the British public would find such a scene 'erotic'? Either way I find this to be an insult to everyone's intelligence and a total abuse of your position.

3. On wider issues, do the Board think that cutting some scenes from '18' rated cinema versions or raising the rating from 'PG' to '15' etc. for home viewing on DVD/video has the desired effect? The evidence suggests that parents are becoming ever more lax about the viewing habits of their children so, on one hand this seems appropriate however, have the Board considered that their actions are undermining the very purpose of the ratings system? Do the Board not consider that if videos were full cinema versions and were left at their original rating, parents might be a) less confused and more observant of video ratings and, b) more vigilant about allowing their kids access to unsuitably-rated material?

3.1 To illustrate the possible harm that censorship provokes, studies in countries where pornography has been made freely available have all shown a marked decrease in sexual offences. I feel it is important to stress that this has been observed in countries where porn has been made 'freely available' because, in the UK, access is limited to over 18's buying such material in person from a licensed 'sex shop' and, UK TV channels are not permitted to broadcast 'R18' material. 'R18' material is also subject to cuts depending on whether the Board deem certain acts to be 'obscene' or 'harmful'. In short, pornography is not 'freely available' in the UK, and thus, we have seen none of the benefits observed in other more liberated countries. If the Board are to 'prevent any harm which may be caused', how can you justify such cuts and restrictions in the light of this evidence?
Might I point out that to circumvent the restrictions on 'R18' availability does NOT require a change of UK legislation, you could simply classify ALL adult material '18' and bypass all the restrictions placed on 'R18' material contained in the VRA (this would also reinforce in people's minds that '18' rated works are intended for adults only!).


4. What research has the Board conducted to ensure they are indeed fulfilling their requirement to 'prevent any harm which may be caused'? I'm sorry, but when I said the Board were 'sick and twisted' it was because I felt that your imagination/interpretation of the effects of certain works/acts/scenes is quite simply the worst case scenario. Ordinary people simply do not think or act in the way the Board sometimes suggest they might if exposed to certain material. I have referred to Japan as a case in point however, the evidence from the rest of the world is just as compelling. I have compiled the following table of the various levels of censorship versus sexual offences in several countries: (crime figures from Interpol)
 

Country	General Censorship	Censorship of sexual violence	sex offences (per 100,000 capita)
Sweden	yes	yes	100
UK, USA, Norway	some	yes	>70
France, Germany	some	some	~60
Benelux	no	no	<50
Spain, Portugal	no	no	20
Japan	no	no	<10

Perhaps Sweden is real proof that what the Board are suggesting is not only wrong but, to implement cuts and bans on certain material might actually result in more harm than good! We all know the Swedes don't censor consensual sex but, they do censor non-consensual sex and other violent or 'disturbing' imagery. The Swedes have the worst incidence of sexual offences anywhere in Europe (if not the World).

Spain and Portugal do not censor any material except (as far as I know) illegal child pornography. All and any other consensual or non-consensual imagery is permissible irrespective of violent or erotic content. Even acts considered 'obscene' in the UK are freely available on video throughout Spain in newsagents and even respectable department stores. I'm also given to understand that all of Spain's ratings are purely advisory and that anyone of any age can view any type of material. Spain and Portugal have the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in Europe.

Japan produces some of the most violent films in the world and an awful lot of erotic non-consensual and 'schoolgirl rape' pornographic material. Japan has probably the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in the world and, it should not be overlooked that until such material became widely available, Japan had similar levels of sex offences as in the UK!

As a final point, were the Board aware of any of this data and, if not, how does the Board know or even believe that the decisions it makes are correct and that you are fulfilling your remit to 'prevent any harm'? As far as I can see the evidence is rather stacked against you...in all countries where censorship is applied to violence or sexual activity the incidence of sexually violent crime and non-sexual violent crime is significantly higher than in countries where no censorship is applied.

I think the explanation for these findings is relatively simple. The notion that certain material can cause people to become sex offenders is totally wrong and utterly misguided. It is clear that when 'some men' have unhindered access to certain types of material, they have little or no need to seek out a victim to fulfil their fantasies.

The Board can continue to place it's trust in a wholly biased report based on some very unconvincing psychological studies or, it can look to the real world evidence and realise that you may not be doing anything 'to prevent any harm which may be caused' and, in fact, you may well be adding to the problem by removing a safe and simple channel for people to experience their fantasies.

I'd just like to thank you for your patience and diligence in answering my queries and I hope the Board will now take this information forward as you draw up your new guidelines.

P.S. A few other thoughts and observations:

Until very recently Norway has imposed an almost 'puritanical' degree of censorship. No films containing any form of sex or violence have been tolerated and yet, the incidence of sexual offences has mirrored that of the UK for many years. This would indicate that 'nice wholesome' media has little if any effect on behaviour. Although Norway has now relaxed it's rules to allow most mainstream movies they have maintained a ban on explicit pornographic material. Only time will tell if this has any effect however, as this is similar to the UK's position prior to 2000, I believe they will see no beneficial effects whatsoever.

I think Sweden should be causing alarm bells to ring in all censors offices.
Clearly, in other countries where there is a 'balance' in consensual sexual imagery and violent/non-consensual sexual imagery there has been a lowering of sexual offences. It has been my contention that the media can fill a gap in people's lives, they do NOT simply copy what they see in the media but instead live out their fantasies through film. If the Board were correct in their assumptions then, as the Swedes are ONLY exposed to consensual sexual imagery then, we should expect that they would only indulge in consensual sex. However, this is clearly not the case and I would suggest that the Board's assumptions about media effects are completely wrong and in fact very dangerous! Eastern philosophies hold the idea of 'balance' to be of utmost importance - that too much of anything is bad whether or not the imbalance is toward 'good' or 'evil'. Bombarding people with 'wholesome' images of consensual sex only creates a void for non-consensual sex. The evidence from Sweden/Norway/UK/USA is that this void is then filled in real life - exactly the opposite effect to that which the censors were trying to safeguard against! The studies above conclude that about 2% of pornographic material contains non-consensual imagery, the proportion is probably a lot higher in Japan and yet, Japan has shown the most compelling evidence that the widespread availability of pornography, and even violent pornography, actually helps reduce sexual offences. Just how the Board reconcile these facts with the 'Media Effects' report baffles me.

It has been found that people who commit rape and sexual offences are most often from very sheltered, conservative backgrounds. Many are only exposed to sexual imagery very much later in life than non-offenders. Clearly, if you are serious about 'preventing ANY harm which may be caused' then people must be allowed access to sexual material at a younger age. To this end, access to such material should not be restricted to adults-only purchasing from sex shops. There is now plenty of evidence to suggest sexual material poses no threat to children and indeed, exposing people to sexual imagery in their adolescent years may actually reduce the risk of them becoming sex offenders later in life. More openness and acceptance of our sexuality is a good thing. Denial and repression of our most basic instincts is quite obviously very damaging (as borne out by the recent studies into the huge and disproportionate number of paedophiles amongst the priesthood).

I know that this evidence represents a paradigm shift for the Board (and the public) however, I think the Board must now stop placing it's faith in some unreliable and flawed psychological studies and accept the real world evidence. After all, it does very much appear that the restriction and censorship of all types of material has a very detrimental effect on society, which is exactly what you are supposed to safeguard against! I know change will not be easy, some members of the public and the Government still continue to press home notions of 'moral values' and other such repressive ideas. Fortunately, these ideas are being replaced by more open and accepting opinions. I hope the Board will now take the opportunity to investigate the real effects of certain media on rape and other violent crime and revise your guidelines accordingly.

I do realise that this is but one of at least 3 factors which contribute to the instances of sexual offences. In the countries where the relaxation of sexual attitudes to porn, prostitution and 'sexual desire' has taken place, there has been a corresponding decrease in sexual offences. The first step has been to relax restrictions on the availability of porn and indeed, all types of material. The second is the acceptance of our sexuality and the fact that we do need outlets for our desires. The third is the relaxation of legislation surrounding sexual behaviour. It goes without saying that Sweden prosecute more sexual offences because they are more critical of certain types of sexual behaviour. Sweden is the only country in Europe that still prosecutes prostitution i.e. accepting money in return for sexual favours. Rape in Sweden is no higher than in any of the other more 'liberated' countries and, violent sex crime in Sweden has been seen to follow the same downward trend. Porn, violent or otherwise, does not appear to be harmful. Women and children are not afraid to walk home alone at night in Japan despite films like 'The Spy of Darkness' being available to young men. It seems the moral values extolled by followers of some religions, and their influence on society, is the CAUSE of the so-called "breakdown of society" and "lowering of values". If the "values" weren't so damaging and in direct conflict with our nature then, it's obvious there would be no sex crime as a result of trying to "maintain" them! Save for the few offences committed by clinically sick 'monsters' there might be no sex crime, unfortunately, it's now becoming clear from some evidence that "maintaining" these "values" actually may go hand-in-hand with the creation of such 'monsters'!

The Board, and more importantly the Government, seem to rely solely on second-hand and anecdotal evidence of the 'harm' of certain material.
Acting on speculative information can have one of two outcomes depending on whether the information is right or wrong. The only concrete evidence of the effects of the availability of certain types of materials (and attitudes), comes from criminal studies into the behaviour of the people on the streets. The evidence suggests that your information is wrong, and as a consequence, the whole country has been adversely affected by your actions.

It's over to you guys...remember: if you're not part of the solution then you must be part of the problem!

Starlight Nutter

Hey there, I read that webpage by that complete and utter loon and was near-throwing-up that somebody could be so ludicrously closed minded. So here is my response to the article: Response to: http://www.avatara.co.uk/campaign.htm

the average decent person will find the majority of them unwatchable - then explain why the movie industry is so huge? Or is this person saying we're all evil and twisted?

The "f" word in 12-rated films. Actually, at it's most extreme, it can only be said once, and only when:

1. It is muttered, mumbled or drowned out almost completely by other noise and
2. When the rest of the film does not emplore a 15-rating.

The fact that the boys had been influenced, at least in part, by their exposure to violent videos cannot be disputed - actually it was, it was thrown out by the court after a tabloid ALONE came up with it as a scapegoat. In Home Alone 2 a little boy absolutely plasters the two criminals in paint - if the killers got it from Child's Play like this nutjob thinks, they could have easily got it from here, and whilst we're at it, let's ban everything with paint in it, so bye bye it is to Changing Rooms I guess!

Growing up as respectable human beings can be done easily. Personally, I grew up watching horror movies, but because I am a normal, average person who KNOWS what right and wrong is and what is real and what is CLEARLY fiction, I amazingly turned out like 99.9% of the population turned out! Normal! I have never been in a fight, I have never punched someone, I have never or will never feel the need to hurt someone. Violence belongs in fiction, I live by this and so do the vast, vast majority of people in the world.

Taking any reference to sex out of 12-rated films!? By the age of 11 at least, I knew the ins and outs (excuse the pun) from High School first year science class. By the age of 12, there is no need to censor people from it, in PG films, yes, sex should be best left to a mere romantic reference, but there is no need to wipe all existence of it from 12 rated films! "Bloody" and "Sod" can barely be considered swear words now surely, times have changed, they're barely considered offensive. Parents should spend a bit of time teaching their kids not to swear, rather than moaning about it.

The Omen - someone has their head cut off, the killer is a demented devil child. Psycho - was considered near-repulsively violent when it was released, but now because it is old and black and white, it's totally OK now is it? What Lies Beneath - this was rated 15 by experience professionals. Hannibal, although gory, couldn't have been more camp or comedic and ridiculous. 18 years of age means "ADULT", this film is for ADULTS, hence the 18 rating. Saving Private Ryan - violence is not glorified at all. It is firstly war, and it is important that 15 year olds can see it, war is not glamorous in the least, this at least attempts to show that. The Full Monty is a comedy - why on earth would this be needed to be rated "22"!!?? The film is more an examination of the plight of the out of work working class male and all those areas like the one it is set in, it's not just about stripping, which by the way, you only see at most a man's arse!

we are allowing our children to be exposed to unnecessary violence and sex at an early age - doesn't this clearly suggest it is the fault of parents for LETTING THEIR children watch such films. If they spent more time with their kids, paid some attention to them once in a while, they might KNOW what their kids are watching. In the end of the day, it comes down to the parents. The films have already been designed and rated to suit a specific audience, they are never intended to fall into young hands.

Surely the point in a 12 rating is so that 12 year olds can go and see it. Surely the point in a 15 rating is so that 15 year olds can go and see it, and ultimately, so that nobody under that age can go see the film!

What does this person mean by a "full blown" sex scene, surely a FULL BLOWN sex scene would be hardcore pornography. Do you see penetration, do you see anything actually graphic? You'd see more in an FHM magazine and infinately greater amounts on the Internet. And this person also says I only saw it for a few seconds and turned it off. It made me feel sick for a fortnight, I didnt watch the rest of the film. If THAT makes you feel sick for a fortnight, you are clearly not mature enough to understand the film, or the contents, or even what you are "campaigning" about.

Three ratings for the amount of film content produced which have so many different levels of sex, violence, bad language and other contents!? I don't think so.

Finding Prince of Egypt scary - how old are this person's kids, how have they been influenced by their parent in their way of life? I saw the 2nd Harry Potter movie and I got scared to the bone throughout the spider attack sequence, and I am 19 years old! I may have arachnophobia, but I KNOW it's fiction, but it was still scary, but I knew it was fake, and therefore I don't care about it being scary.

Mulan - cross dressing!? How is that harmful!? Surely hiding it from your kids is worse, making them far less accepting of other people and their lifestyle choices. Plus, she dressed as a man to fight for a good cause, she had to dress as a man because of the sexist policies of her people, surely this moral is good enough to justify cross-dressing, but anyway, would the audience even KNOW what cross-dressers are, be aware of their existence, or even care one iota?

Back to the Future and Back to the Future II. I can't remember if these are 'U's or PG's, but in both cases should be a 12 because of the scene in the car in the first one when 'Lorraine' nearly gets raped and the lowness of her dress, and the size of her chest in the second film. - This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read so far in this article. 1) The person does not know the rating of the film - they can't even be arsed to do a TINY TINY amount of research. 2) Lorraine does not get almost raped because of her dress, she almost does because Biff is a bad guy and has no respect for women, something that is not supported in anyway by the film, and that is why Biff is dragged from the car, knocked unconcious and humiliated and the good guy gets the girl. The size of her chest in the second film is a joke, she's come into the rich lifestyle and was made to have those size breasts. It's making a joke about the sheer stupid-look of it, but also about what a ridiculous person Biff is when he is rich and how disgraceful he is.

Minority Report - where exactly was the 'gore'? Lord of the Rings WAS to be rated 12, but was rated PG as it was a very borderline case, this film along with Spider-Man brought about the 12A rating - allowing more freedom for choice of viewing.

Father of the Bride - surely speaking of condoms is a GOOD thing. The reason the ratings were dropped was because it really wasn't necessary to have such a high rating for Psycho or The Full Monty - and I thought this person was in favour of Psycho earlier on in this flimsy excuse for a 'campaign'? Also - ratings DO go up, Starship Troopers was rated 15 in the cinema, but was upped to an 18 rating for video. This is not the only time this has happened. Also, films can also be cut between cinema and home release.

Swear words being broadcast is a pure mistake of the editors for the broadcasting companies. Appologies are always aired or complaints are responded to.

This person thinks The Running Man will become real? This person clearly IS delusional!

Surely having Sex Shops which are properly licensed, legal and above board selling legally obtained goods is far better than driving it into the black market!?

"Children's" books containing bad language - then they clearly are books for "young adults" - such as say, a 15 year old.

Microwave transmitters, power lines, pylons - this person is against EVERTHING! Get rid of all that, you can kiss goodbye to electricity and communication - let's all go back to the stoneage! It'll be great! (Yeh right).

Hydrogenated Oil - this is a SERIOUS joke now surely! GM Food - if people had ALLOWED it to be TESTED to the full extent, we could have had a pretty neat solution to solving hunger in the very near future! But oh no, can't have that now can we!?

 

I got in touch with that "Holy Mother" and said that the fact that the two lads had seen the "Chucky" film was never proved, and she's now taken the assertion off her site.....

Tentacles

In Response to the latest BBFC ban

Ive just watched Spy of Darkness. I can report this is most definitely the usual Hentai sex beast stuff. There are several rape scenes but as the work deals with the exploits of a sex-crazed monster this is hardly surprising. The rape scenes are not over played and are certainly not glamorised or make rape out to be a good thing. The heroines of the movie carry out the only real violence apart from the forced-entries of the beast.

I dont see what all the fuss is about. There are several Darkness movies all with similar tentacled cartoon monsters violating cartoon girls. I make the point these are cartoon characters. As far as the BBFC guidelines go, I m of the opinion that when the public commented on the subject of violent and non-consensual sex scenes, they meant real live action not fantasy cartoons as in this case. Indeed, when the BBFC were asked about their stance on violent computer games their reply was along the lines that these are fantasy characters and as such no one believes the violence is real. Strange then that the mixing of plainly fantasy characters with plainly fantasy sexual violence doesnt qualify in the same way.

As usual the BBFC are picking and choosing to interpret their own guidelines as they see fit to suit whatever mood they are in on a particular day. I found nothing exploitative or glamorising about the Spy of Darkness, its a run of the mill Hentai cartoon, well drawn and with a good few plot twists and none of the usual close-ups of pink bits. The BBFC obviously didnt want to watch it and so now neither can anyone else.

Seems to me that it would take a pretty sick and perverted mind to view this cartoon in the way the BBFC have portrayed it but then thats what Ive come to expect from the BBFC. Im still trying to figure out how you can exploit a cartoon character...anyone?

ps

I have searched the web and found several sites dedicated to the subject of Hentai. I've managed to view several of the films which have received glowing reviews from people who are in the know on this stuff (I wasn't particularly interested until the BBFC started banning it!!).

So far, virtually all Hentai cartoons I've seen contain some form of non-consensual sex scene in them. If you are a fan of Hentai I suggest you get lobbying immediately to get this stuff allowed as 'fantasy sex' otherwise, the BBFC will start banning some of the best Hentai available (if not all of it!).

You have been warned! - give 'em an inch and they'll take the proverbial mile!

If anyone has seen Jungle Burger (which received an 18 cert waay back in the 70's/80's) you'll know that cartoons don't qualify in this category and the BBFC shouldn't be trying to justify banning this type of material now.

This is not real people indulging in real sex with real violence - BBFC Guidelines regarding non-consensual sex do not extend to this type of material and they are stretching the bounds to suggest anything different!

 

As usual the BBFC are full of shit. We all know that. Take it from a film fan and an otaku.

The BBFC seem to treat anime as a genre aimed at children, as apposed to what it is, a medium to tell a story.

About 8 years ago there was The Adventure Kid incident, its title had to be changed to Adventure Duo before it was released in the UK because it was animated and parents might think its for children (despite the fact it had a huge 18 sticker and "absolutely not for children" on the cover.

My advice is if your an otaku (or indeed a movie fan) get a multi region dvd player and import region 1 anime. you will have a better selection. we get less than 1% of the anime released in the USA.

Try www.anisaki.com, that's were I get my anime from and they're dirt cheap.

OfBalance

Dear Melon Farmers,

The appointment of Olympic Athlete Jonathon Edwards is surely something to be very concerned about. He may be a devout Christian but this does not make him qualified to rule on matters of "taste and decency" and decide what is an isn't appropriate for us to watch on our TV screens.

He has said himself that he feels unqualfied for this role, so why is he doing it? The National Secular Society called his appointment "Mary Whitehouse reincarnated" and they are accurate in their observations. Like you, I wonder if there are any people on the board who enjoy programmes such as soaps, reality TV shows, and also late night comedy and sex.

I doubt this is the case, as it is likely the people who have set up OfCom feel such people are unintelligent and unable to make up their minds for themselves what is and isn't "tasteful and decent." Pro-censorship campaign groups will be hoping this board begins to remove such programming which offends their sensibilites. After all, they believe soaps and reality shows such as Big Brother are programmes for what they call the "underclasses" and those of us who choose to watch such programmes are mere mortals who need telling what we should and shouldn't be watching.

There should be more neutral people on this board, rather than those with particular agendas.  I am surprised that members of censorship pressure groups such as Mediawatch UK are not on the board. That is one good thing at least, their idea is to ban everything that offends them and the threat of enforced censorship would become very real if they were allowed a place. But still this board is unbalanced, contains people with an axe to grind and does not reflect the views of the vast majority of the public. But then again, when have those in power ever cared what the public think?

 

RE: the recent comments by Jonathan Edwards

I think Mr. Edwards might have missed the point of his appointment to OFCOM. As far as I know, he is not there to dictate censorship. As I understand it, the role of OFCOM, is to ensure ALL tastes, creeds and colours are catered for in a fair and balanced way. The reason for Mr. Edwards' appointment to OFCOM was given as "his knowledge of sport and religion". His input to ensure any sports and religious broadcasting is fair and balanced I'm sure will be welcomed.

His views on sex and violence however are not shared by all other people so in this respect I don't think he should be commenting on such matters. OFCOM need to find their feet before they (and we) start to make any judgements about how they are performing and exactly what their role is. As a 'light touch' regulator, I do not think Mr. Edwards should have made such broad and sweeping statements. Sex and violence are on TV because they attract viewers, something Mr. Edwards obviously can't relate to. If there really was too much sex and violence on TV surely everyone would switch off?

Broadly speaking I don't see that OFCOM will function any differently to the ITC. They will make recommendations on broadcast 'quality' and rule on complaints in much the same way as the ITC. What has always been fundamentally flawed in this set-up is that, while many thousands of viewers find the programmes they watch to be fine and acceptable, it only takes one complaint about one thing to bring the conduct of a whole channel into question. This is not very democratic or representative and quite worrying in view of the people chosen to make up the OFCOM panel. It begs the question why are there no 'ordinary' representatives of the general public on the OFCOM panel? If OFCOM are to enforce 'generally accepted standards', why have such 'odd-balls' with not so hidden agendas been recruited?

I'm sure Mr. Edwards' comments have angered many liberal minded people. If this is a glimpse of what OFCOM consider to be 'generally accepted standards' then they are to my mind already way off the mark. To those of us who do give a damn about freedom of expression and, have been hoping that OFCOM were going to embrace such principals (unlike the draconian ITC), this news has come as a disappointment to say the least.
 

Director,
The Chief Executives Office,
Ofcom

Paul wrote to Ofcom concerning the composition of the Content Board for Melonfarmers/Ofwatch. I wrote to them last month asking why the Content Board was so unbalanced in age and religious belief. This was their response:

Stephen Carter has asked me to thank you for your letter of 19 April and to reply on his behalf.

I recognise that you will want to reserve judgement on any reassurances at this stage in response to your concerns about the Ofcom Content Board: the proof of the pudding is, as ever, in the eating. But may I make three points: First, the search and recruitment process for members of the Content Board was very thorough and followed extensive advertising for the posts. Only the four National and Regional Members ere chosen on a representative basis as the communications Bill requires. The other part-time members were selected for their ability to reflect a diverse range of views, including those of ethnic communities and the disabled. The denominational composition of the members of the Content Board is thus a happenstance not a design feature of the recruitment process.

Second your point about finding suitable young candidates is well taken. It is a challenge right across the field of public appointments. Even if the cost of electing Content Board Members could be justified as proportionate, the evidence elsewhere suggests it may well not produce the results you hope for. Elections to Local Councils, the Westminster Parliament or the devolved Parliament/Assemblies produce relatively few young elected candidates.

Third the Content Board intends to consult both genuinely and widely to secure input from all ages, communities and ranges of view on Ofcoms broadcasting standards codes, the publics evolving expectations of public service broadcasting and broadcast news etc. In addition to direct consultations, citizens juries, regional public seminars and meetings, the Boards decisions will also be informed by a wide ranging audience research programme and large-volume surveys of public opinion. These will address both one-off topics and sustain established surveys which measure how public attitudes to broadcast content change over time, so that content regulation can evolve in step with public expectations.

 

Dear Mr Morris,

Thank you for your reply to my letter original to Stephen Carter concerning the Ofcom content board.

You wrote that the denominational composition of the Content Board was happenstance. I must say that it does seem rather an unlikely happenstance to me, however I have no evidence to the contrary so I am willing to accept your word on the matter. As you said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Concerning the election of the content board, I accept your point on the practicality of a national vote; however I think that it would be wise to try to employ some form of representation in the future if at all possible.

You said that the Content Board intends to consult both genuinely and widely to secure input from all ages, communities and ranges of view on Ofcoms broadcasting standards codes. This is an admirable aim and I do hope that this will actually be the case. If it is then I will be the first to congratulate Ofcom. I also note your point concerning the boards decisions being informed by a wide ranging audience research program and large volume surveys of public opinion. Again this is reassuring as it is important to have such demographically correct information on which to base decisions.

I am look forward to the coming consultation period with interest and I will hopefully be able to write back to congratulate you on the performance of the Content Board.

 

I work in the Duty Office of a national broadcaster and have followed your OfCom discussions with some interest. I felt compelled to chip in with my two penneth on the subject of Mr Edwards' appointment.

As someone who routinely deals with disgruntled (and appreciative) viewers, I am not happy about a comment made in the interview with The Observer:

What I don't like is gratuitous sex and and violence. I think it is bad and lazy TV and I don't know why we have to see it.

Unfortunately for people in my position, there are many masochists out there. Mr Edwards (and many others) seem to have missed the point of living in a "free society". We have choice. Mr Edwards seems to think he has no choice but to watch TV that he doesn't like. I am often surprised by how many viewers seem to force themselves to watch something disagreeable till the end and then complain that they were "offended" or "disgusted".

This links also with the viewers who believe that broadcasters have a hidden agenda to offend and alienate them. There is one fact they seem to ignore, commercial broadcasters need viewers to generate ad revenue. IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO MAKE VIEWERS WANT TO TURN OFF.

Complaints such as these only serve to lessen the impact of genuine grievances. Viewers don't always realise that they wield more power than any regulatory body. Viewers have the power to extend or kill the run of a programme, all at the touch of a (remote control) button. There exists a simple equation:

lots of viewers = lots more episodes
not many viewers = no more episodes

I urge all people with concerns about Mr Edwards appointment to write to the ITC, their MP and The Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

It would also be good for me, if people are discussing contentious TV programmes with disgusted/offended acquaintances, that they remind them of the free choice and easy nature of changing channels