Opinion

Censorship & Cowardice Department at eBay

Just last night I listed the 18 rated, BBFC approved documentary MARY MILLINGTON - THE NAKED TRUTH (aka True Blue Confessions) for auction on Ebay. By 6.00 PM tonight, it had been removed. Why? Check out the following email

 

We appreciate that you chose eBay to list the following item(s): 3351077414 Mary Millington NAKED TRUTH rare documentary! However, your listing(s) contained adult material that is inappropriate for listing on eBay UK. Therefore, we have ended this auction(s) and all fees have been credited to your account.

In determining whether the item should be permitted to be listed, we consider the overall content of the listing including pictures and text.

For example, if an item description leads us to believe the content of the listing is adult in nature as defined by this policy, that item will be ended.

Please note that blocking the "risque" parts of an image will not exempt the item from these standards.

For your convenience we have included a link to our Adult items policies:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-erotica.html

Please view our guideline page for a better understanding of our auction guidelines and how they affect the way you list your items:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-list.html

For information on infringing or illegal items or for information on other eBay listing guidelines, please view:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-items.html

For more information on why eBay has ended an auction, please visit:

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/community/png-endauction.html

Any future listings that fail to meet our Adult items guidelines will be ended early and repeated violations may jeopardise your account status. We value you as a member of our community and wish to continue this relationship. Therefore, we respectfully ask that you abide by eBay's Listing Policies and User Agreement in the future.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department) eBay Inc

 

Thanks for your gentle ticking off and short lesson in the evils of my auction item MARY MILLINGTON - THE NAKED TRUTH, a wholly innocuous slice of 18 rated, BBFC approved (therefore, completely legal) Brit-smut.

However, I am a little confused regarding the way in which your policy for 'inappropriate' material is actually enforced. If your definition of inappropriate does actually mean 'any material that depicts, in actual or simulated form, or explicitly describes, in a predominantly sexual context, human genitalia, any act of natural or unnatural sexual intercourse, any act of sadism or masochism, or any other erotic subject directly related to the foregoing' then I am afraid that the item I listed for auction hardly qualifies.

If it does indeed breach your guidelines, then I am afraid you must take it upon yourselves immediately to remove a whole range of films currently listed for sale on your auction site, such as BASIC INSTINCT, JADE, LAST TANGO IN PARIS or CALIGULA. These titles all contain material that meets your criteria for 'inappropriate' far more than THE NAKED TRUTH. Let's take a sample from the suggested cross-section of titles that I am currently free to bid on - repeated stabbing with an ice-pick while a naked woman straddles a bound man, a stilletto heel rammed into the anus of a submissive man and sodomy enacted upon a woman whose anus has been lubricated with butter. Granted, these acts are all simulated, but I'm pretty sure at least one of these acts would fit into your definition of 'unnatural sexual intercourse'. Moreover, as you are so keen to ensure that ACTUAL depictions of sexual activity are prohibited for sale, would you please explain to me why I was able to purchase on EBay UK, the complete, unexpurgated version of an infamous 1970s film (starring Peter O' Toole, Helen Mirren and Sir John Gielgud) that includes unsimulated depictions of (both heterosexual and homosexual) oral sex , vaginal penetration, ejaculation and urination? If you are unwilling to sanction the sale of such material then I am quite sure the seller would be quite happy to take back your percentage.

For the record, THE NAKED TRUTH contains absolutely no explicit depictions of genitalia, only very brief (and very mild) depictions of (simulated) sexual intercourse, and absolutely no examples of sadism or mashochism. The film is actually a documentary record of the eponymous individual's career in the UK sex industry of the 70s and the occassional example of sexual material is wholly appropriate and completely unavoidable.

As somebody who holds a doctorate in film studies, I do find it quite extraordinary in the 21st century that an organization such as yours (which, incidentally, I value very highly) should take it upon itself to act as a secondary censor after the body officially designated to do the job has already deemed the 'offending' article wholly suitable for adult consumption. I am afraid your policy is typical of the ignorance afforded marginalized cultural forms in the UK - in this case, if you haven't judged a book by its cover, then you have barely glanced beyond the title page.

Perhaps ironically, one of the features of the documentary was the way in which its subject was hounded to her grave by the unremitting harassment of the censoriously minded institutions that sought to impose their own excruciatingly conservative world view upon others. I am very disappointed in your action and

I urge you to reconsider your position (oops, sexually suggestive remark, liable to censorship). I will continue to value EBAY but must voice my opposition in this case of corporate censorship. I look forward to a more considered response and the possibility that I may be able to re-list the item in light of a mature, sensible and adult discussion.

 

Don't worry I've had umpteen auctions pulled from Ebay in the past myself including the '18' rated Emmanuelle and Flesh Gordon. One time they pulled around thirty auctions from my listings all at once after I'd spent hours putting them on for 'promoting violence'. The videos included Ghostwatch and Cannibal Holocaust.

Another time they suspended my entire account just for listing similar films, I mean come on they're just films! Like many bodies they let their growing status go to their heads and end up thinking they're censors themselves. I wouldn't even bother writing to them I've tried many times but it's like flogging a dead horse.

Weapons of Mass Deception

Dear Melon Farmers,

I have noticed references to the war in Iraq on this site and judging from many of the comments made you seem against the action taken by the US and Britain.

I believe the action taken was the right one and that Saddam Hussain was a threat to the West. OK, so we have not yet found any WMDs but does this mean they did not exist? It seems those who have opposed the war have been saying "Find the weapons as soon as you get there, or else you are liars".

It appears the majority of those who protested against the war on Iraq believe in general that military action is not the way to end world terrorism. I would just like to ask what in your view is the way to end global terrorism. Is it wealth redistribution? If so would giving millions of pounds in aid to the poorest countries instantly end the threat of this new terrorism we face? Islamic Fundamentalism does not discriminate over how much it's targets or followers have or do not have. This belief from the Left that the September 11 attacks was based on the fact that America does not "share" it's wealth enough is deaply flawed.

It goes far deaper than that, with a cultural and religious hatred emanating from the perpetrators and the groups who continue to plot similar attacks. The argument against the action taken against Iraq and Afghanistan centres on the belief that liberation and ending of tyrannical and hostile regimes can be done without military force.

But could we really expect to be able to "reason" with groups such as Al-Quaida? And surely if we threw lots of aid in the direction of the countries they occupy with it would be used to further their terrorist actions. Of course diplomacy must be given a chance. But without some sort of military force to rid us of the terrorist organisations which continue to cause massive problems the threat will continue.

 

In brief I believe in asserting civilisation by example and justice. The United Nations have respect and authority to take action against wrong  doing nations. To kill and maim thousands without proper authority and justification is a heinous crime. It does nothing to promote world civilisation.

On the whole the economic example of the west is a sufficient aspirational target for countries to encourage convergence with the richer countries. We just need to ensure that we don't override the economic benefits by promoting ourselves as murderous selfish war mongering bullies. 

Dumbed Down Mail

Dear Melon Farmers,

I noticed that Noel Edmond's apology for starting the trend of "dumbed down" TV with Mr Blobby has been picked up by the Daily Mail for one of their frowning at today's "falling standards" articles. A typically snorty piece from a snorty columnist decries the decline in "taste", "decency" and civilised behaviour in favour of "smut" and "crudity" on prime time terrestrial television.

Usually those who moan about the levels of "smut" on TV wish it was not on TV at all. If they had their way TV would be clean, wholesome family orientated mush even at gone past 11 at night.

They snear at those who choose to watch programming they disapprove of believing them to be somehow less intellectually or socially acceptable than them.

A few years ago the Daily Mail ran an article by some prudish woman who claimed that all viewers of adult cartoon comedy South Park must be under age drink and drug addicts. Such stereotypical labelling is normal behaviour from the holier than thou brigade who think they are better than those who watch things they dislike. These are the people whining constantly about "dumbed down" TV. For me THEY are the dumb ones.

Teens at the BBFC

 To the BBFC

I have a (hopefully) simple query for you.

The Protection of Children Act stipulates that sexual imagery of children under the age of 16 is classified as child pornography - fair enough. However, imagery of people over the age of 16 is presumably instead covered by the Obscene Publications Act - for example, Page 3 girls are fairly often over 16 but under 18 (Samantha Fox started aged 16), and this is deemed acceptable (not your domain, I realise).

Meanwhile, films with the R18 rating can of course only be purchased by people over the age of 18. It seems to me that this leaves a grey area for sexual imagery of persons aged 16 and 17. Could you please let me know what the BBFC policy is on this?

For example - in some European countries it is legal to produce adult material featuring actors aged 16 and 17 engaged in sexual acts. If such material was submitted to the BBFC, and in terms of content otherwise conformed to all the other guidelines for acceptable material in an R18 film, would it be passed? Or, would the film be denied classification on the basis of some of the actors being under 18 (even though they are over 16)? Bear in mind that no laws would have been broken while making the film (a fact that probably is even true if it was filmed in the UK).

This could, for example, be of interest for anyone wishing to import such films as those featuring the notorius American actress, Traci Lords, who famously made adult films ages 16 and 17.

I ask (of course), purely out of academic interest. To me it would be preferable if this country had clearer laws in place concerning pornography. Don't worry - I do not want to enter into a dialogue with you arguing the pros and cons of your policy, I am merely interested in what your policy actually is on the subject.

 

BBFC policy has always been not to classify any pornography in which participants are under 18. If a porn video was submitted featuring under 18s (eg a Traci Lords video) we would refuse to classify it.

Although we agree that such material currently inhabits a legal grey area, the new Sexual Offences Bill - working its way through Parliament at the moment - will in fact make the use of under 18s in pornography illegal. This should help to finally make the position in the UK very clear.

 

I'm interested to see that the BBFC refer to the Sexual Offences Bill making the use of under 18s in pornography illegal.

Legislation tends not to use the word "pornography", but is more likely to use "indecent" or "obscene". I wonder what precisely is being outlawed by this legislation. Will it include innocuous stuff like the photographs for which Samantha Fox, Natalie Banus and other young adult women posed, published in men's magazines in the late eighties or early nineties? If so, what is the position of somebody who has an old copy of Mayfair in his attack, or of vintage magazine sellers who handle such magazines?

I'm aware that a previous attempt to ban such photography foundered in the House of lords when someone had the sense to point out that this would criminalise young people photographing one another.

What's the Point of Softcore?

 To the Melon Farmers

I recently heard what I thought was a classic remark from a friend of mine, whom is in no way connected to the adult industry. This guy is just an ordinary, everyday man in the street. He asked me Jim, those people that don't watch porn, don't watch softcore, and those of us that do watch porn, don't want to watch softcore... so what's the point of softcore? - I thought this was a nice way of summing up how the majority of British adults now feel towards porn.

My wife recently spotted Emmanuel on sale in Tescos. Knowing that for old times sake, I have always wanted a copy (lets face it, the films history makes it a must have title for any collector of erotica) - she purchased said film.

We where both kind of bemused and amused after watching a certain scene in the film, not because of the act being performed in the scene, simply that in light of the recent unwarranted 'cuts' being made to practically every other adult film passing the censors! - they should see fit to leave in the scene of a young looking Thai girl, performing the classic lit cigarette trick (you know the one, lit cigarette, vaginal insertion, deep breath! if I can put it that way, cigarette removal, smoke blown back out of pussy). How do the BBFC justify the insane cuts they make to other 18 rated films, when anybody purchasing a pound of spuds from their local Tescos can pick up a film with this scene in it? Hypocritical? I think so. I say, let the buyer make their own choice, want to see porn? buy it. Don't want to see it, don't buy it... surly it isn't that hard to comprehend is it?

Who knows, maybe one day the British will be allowed to make their own choices about what they want to watch, and not have the decision made for them by people so far out of touch with the real world that they wouldn't know the difference between a plastic cock and a real one if it was stuck in their ear!!!

Harm vs Taste & Decency

To Ian

Thank you for your further e-mail of 26 July which I note you have sent to The Melon Farmers and censorfreetv.

At the present time television in Britain is regulated by the Governors of the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. They are required in the Royal Charter and the Broadcasting Act to secure that programmes "do not offend good taste or decency". This requirement, in my opinion, ought to rule out all pornography on television.

"Freedom of Expression" is not an absolute concept. Indeed the Human Rights Act qualifies this with regard to health and morals. I believe that pornography, by its promotion of responsibility-free sex contributes to the rise in sexually transmitted infections, the rise in sexual crime and a general loosening of public and private morality.

I would define pornography as any published explicit sexual images having no other purpose than to sexually arouse those who look at it.

Scientific research shows that such material presents a distorted view of human sexuality that gives rise to a range of psychological problems associated with sexuality and behaviour. For these reasons I do strongly object to the material the BBFC is currently classifing at 'R18'. The Board's Guidelines are self-determined according to the demands of the industry and according to what the failed criminal law now permits. Whilst I recognize that restrictions do apply to the marketing of 'R18' videos these minimal measures cease to have any effect once the material is in circulation. Of course sex is part of everyday life but that does not justify the exploitation of human sexuality by graphic portrayals in videos and DVDs as though it is some sort of spectator sport. The evident lack of love or commitment or responsibility degrades human dignity, whatever the means of transmission, because it isolates sexuality from a much broader human experince. The latest 'fetish'in pornography is humiliating and is intended to be so. Whate else is masochism and domination?

Of course parents must play a role in safeguarding their children but their job in bringing them up to have respect for themselves and for others is undermined by the widespread availability of pornographic material which shows no respect for anyone.

I somehow doubt that these clarifications and explanations will satisfy you given the previous correspondence we have had. The crisis in STI's and the huge rise in sexual offences reported this month call for a range of remedial action and a more responsible attitude to sexual behaviour is plainly needed. In my opinion pornography, in all its manifestations, is adding significantly to these serious problems.

 

Are you aware that since 1997 (long before R18 carried 'hardcore'), the annual ITC surveys, 'The Publics View 1997-2002', have shown that at least 75% of a random selection of the public, agree that 'people should be able to subscribe to channels broadcasting particularly explicit sexual material'?

As we live in a democracy, I fail to see why the vast majority of people are simply being ignored. Such material obviously does not represent an affront to their 'standards of taste and decency'. Furthermore, as it is clear that persons only believe such material should be available on specialist subscription-only channels, I do not see how such a move would pose any threat to those with a more delicate sense of morality, taste or decency. Nobody is forcing you to watch and accidental exposure is extremely unlikely.

Why you believe pornography poses any threat to health or morality is not clear to me. If there is sufficient evidence to support your claims, then why was this not provided to the High Court at the time of the judicial review into hardcore at R18? Surely, the BBFC had every ounce of evidence in support of their position, and yet, the court was unable to support a ban on any evidence of 'harm', despite the possibility that children might even gain access to such material once in the home. The Court found, quite correctly, that it would not be proportional to ban such material on the grounds of unproven potential harm to children. Indeed, all the studies I am familiar with show that consensual adult pornography is totally harmless, it is nothing more than an aid-to-sex. Our Courts have held the opinion that 'pornography is pure fantasy' for more than 30 years (R. v Handyside 1971). It seems to me that you are placing far too much emphasis on the completely unproven 'effects' of viewing such material, after all, most people perform these acts in their own sex-lives, why and how you believe viewing the same acts poses any greater threat to health or morals is quite ridiculous.

I might add that 'pornography' has always been a part of human culture and society, it is nothing new and it is nothing to be feared. Archaeological evidence shows that many great and civilised societies had quite different and 'relaxed' views on sex and sexuality. Only the modern ideals of Judeo/Christian/Muslim doctrines deem sex to be dirty, shameful or, worst still, sinful! This is, at the end of the day, at the crux of your argument. It is your belief system that says sex is harmful, this clouds your judgement and colours your views. You have the right to believe whatever you wish however, so does everyone else and, as 75% of the people do not see that sex on TV is any big issue, we should respect our belief in the democratic system and give the people what they want.

There is no point guaranteeing the right to Freedom of Expression if we cannot use this effectively. Yes, we have to use it responsibly and yes, it should be restricted when there is 'strict justification' that the 'information or ideas' are clearly harmful or subversive. However, far from promoting the spread of STIs, most modern pornography shows people indulging in 'safe sex' (indeed, R18 material carries a disclaimer and an STI warning). This, together with the understanding that pornography is nothing more than 'fantasy' (which I believe you would find almost everyone agrees with) means that pornography is harmless and indeed, it might actually be helpful and beneficial to some people. There are few grounds, and certainly nothing providing 'strict justification', to allow restriction of pornography on any medium. British law is clearly in breech of the terms of Freedom of Expression. To allow pornography on video/dvd and then restrict it from broadcasting is hypocritical. Indeed, the ECHR has already decreed (with respect to broadcasting) that, "It is undisputed that Article 10 does not permit the restriction of any legal material" (Groppera v Switzerland 1990).

As we have previously discussed, the spread of STIs is due to people having unprotected sex. I fail to see how pornography plays any part in people NOT wearing a condom, especially when most 'adult' performers can be seen wearing condoms in their films. This is an issue of self-preservation not censorship. Any belief that suppressing sexual imagery will stop people having unprotected sex is, quite frankly, delusional. The solution lays in education, not legislation.

The 'huge increase' in the incidence of rape is due to a different method of reporting crime. The truth is that many crimes were simply not reported in the past. To blame pornography for this increase is to misunderstand the purpose and the way people use pornography. Indeed, the incidence of rape in this country is far higher than in many other European States where pornography is freely available. To suggest there is a link between rape and the availability of porn, reveals an inverse correlation that totally destroys your argument!

Finally, do you believe YOU would be adversely affected by exposure to explicit imagery? If so, would YOU become promiscuous or turn to rape to satisfy some 'insatiable lust'? I'm sure you, and any normal adult, would answer 'no' to these questions. What makes you believe any of your claims about pornography are correct?

Arbitrary ITC Guidelines

The ITC programme code contains the following::

Programme services are free to deal appropriately with all elements of the human experience but should avoid gratuitous offence by providing information and guidance to audiences, bearing in mind the expectations of those watching. Decisions on programme content will vary according to the time of day, nature of the channel and the likely audience.

It continues:
Material unsuitable for children must not be transmitted at times when large numbers of children may be expected to be watching.

However the ITC accepts that, even though some children are always likely to be present in the audience, the likelihood varies according to the time, subject matter and channel. The majority of homes do not contain children and viewers have a right to expect a range of subject matter.

It goes on to say that the assumption is that numbers of viewing children decline later into the evening.
and further:
The following basic rules apply except where satisfactory security mechanisms are imposed: (see 1.4(ii)), when rules (a), (b) and (c) do not apply).
a)No '12' rated version should normally start before 8pm on any service.
b)No '15' rated version should normally start before 9pm (or 8pm on premium rate subscription services, contents permitting).
c)No '18' rated version should start before 10pm on any service. This rule may be relaxed if the classification was made more than 10 years ago and the film is now clearly suitable for earlier transmission.
d)No 'R18' version should be transmitted at any time.
e)No version refused a BBFC certification should be transmitted at any time.

All of the above show that the decision within the ITC code not to show R18 material on subscription only services is arbitrary and not in keeping with the rest of the code. If security measures are deemed sufficient that 18's can be shown before the watershed on pay-per-view or subscription only, then why are they suddenly no longer sufficient when it comes to R18 material?

It has been stated that the BBFC's treatment of R18 is sufficient justification for it's refusal ... but the BBFC do NOT refuse such material, the merely restrict it.

The code is inconsistent and arbitrary in this regard. It is also stated that Images of very brief duration are unlikely to be in conflict with the Act ... I'll leave that to you for conclusion.

Bumfights

Email to the BBFC

After taking a look at the trailer at http://www2.bumfights.com/indecline
for the rejected video: Bumfights: Cause for Concern Volume 1

I cannot help but wonder if this censorship really is a step too far, and an unfair restriciton of freedom.

This has obviously been rejected on the justification of mere bad taste, rather than anything illegal or truly harmful. The participants were all grown up, and as far as I can tell, they all participated of their own free will

The BBFC talk incessantly about what is and is not acceptable in our society. Well, unjustified video censorship also isn't acceptable. in a free country.

Perhaps the BBFC wants to continue to justify its own existence, by unfairly banning video works, and restricting the right of freedom of expression of others ?
 

Thank you for your comments. 

I don't think we have anything to add to our website justification (which explains why we regard the video as potentially harmful, rather than just extremely tasteless).

 

I suspect that the real reason for the banning of this nasty piece of work lies neither on grounds of social harm nor good taste or bad taste, but actually on a series of lawsuits brought against the producers in America by some of the homeless people involved in the video.  As far as I'm aware, the case/s are still proceeding, so there's no word on precisely how consensual some of the footage is. 

All of which begs the question, what made the producers think they could get away with submitting it for release in another country?

Corporate Greed

Dear Melon Farmers,

I have noticed on your website that you often talk about online piracy of music and refer to any attempts to prevent it as "corporate greed".

However, although you are right on most things, I feel you are wrong on this subject.

The argument for music piracy is that the record companies make enough money as it is and therefore it won't hurt them that people are downloading the music they publish for free.

But surely this will hurt up and coming recording artists who have not yet hit the big time or the money of the already established artists.

Also, if you extend the logic that it is fair to illegally take music from record companies because they have "made enough money" then surely it would fair to walk into Asda, Tesco or any major supermarket and take something without paying and then turn round in court and say well, they make enough money, and they are greedy corporate scoundrels.

Although I am opposed to censorship I do not see how preventing people from stealing music online counts as such a thing. You can still hear the music if you buy it from the stores, and the CDs aren't that overpriced.

Theft is bad enough without it being justified by some Left wing agenda to bring down the evil corporate scum of the world.

 

The morality of copyright is a fascinating subject. There are certainly few rights and wrongs, its more of case of an ongoing battle between large corporations who want to maximise their profits and the consumers who want to pay as little as possible for a large selection as possible. There must be a mutually acceptable middle ground with perhaps a legally agreed fair use policy.

I feel that the media industry have attempted some very unreasonable policies that are just totally unacceptable, eg region encoding and subscription only music download services. I am happy to argue against such moves employing any colourful language that amuses me at the time.

On the other hand, I recognise that commercial piracy of videos/CDs etc is not generally acceptable. However I feel that there even here there are limits. I am happy to support commercial pirates via buying their products if I am denied a legal product in the medium term. The usual reason for this is censorship.

My private code of ethics is somewhere near as follows:

• If the uncut movie/CD I want is legitimately available locally (or soon will be), I buy it locally
• else if the uncut movie/CD I want is available legitimately from abroad, I buy it abroad
• else I am happy to buy a copy

When I am in Britain the vast majority of purchases are therefore legit but when I am in Thailand, the vast majority are copies. Local movies are general dubbed into Thai and have all sex scenes no matter how mild pixellated out. Hardcore is totally out of the question. Worries about Thai Customs means that it is not safe to import, so the only option is to buy copies (of foreign, original language versions). Hence the Thai copy industry thrives.

An added complication to this debate though is a belief in the political power of the wallet. I feel loathe to contribute to any product where profits and taxes feed back to the coffers of the US. This money is used to kill and maim thousands of innocent people without any justification what so ever. So for the moment, I consider that United States of War Criminals has foregone the rights to copyright.

 

Is it fair to rob performing artists of their earnings because you disagree with the policies of US government?
Is it their fault that the US government "kill and maim thousands of innocent people" as you say?

If you don't like what the US government do, just don't buy their products. But surely it is wrong to push your prejudices against them onto that of music artists, especially the up and coming ones who are not yet up there with the high earners.

I agree with you though that sometimes downloading of illegal material is the only means of media which has been censored. However, by stopping online piracy of music we are not imposing censorship, just ensuring work gets rewarded with the money that is it due.

 

Personally I cant see what all the fuss is about. I cant see how CD Music piracy is harming the industry. Artists are still breaking record sales and still going platinum.

You get die hard fans who will buy an artists music regardless. and you get casual fans who only like one or two songs off the album and then download them. Hey if they didn't have the internet then all they would do is give a blank cassette to their mate and have it copied.. something we have all done for years anyway. Its not as if they would have bought the damn thing anyway.

So tell me.. how is downloading something off the internet more damaging than taking a copy off your mate. We all done it before the internet and there was no talk of an industry losing millions.. then there is the issue of us having free music for years anyway via Radio and MTV but that's another matter.

Costing Millions? I don't think so.