Shaun's response clearly
highlights some of the weaknesses in the Governmen't position so I have included this also
Dear Mr Casselton,
Thank you for you recent reply, in respect to the government's continued imposition of
censorious (and in my view unjustified) proscription orders, on foreign broadcasters, and
the retention of strict censorship on domestic subscription satellite television.
I hope you don't mind this further reply, but I am afraid I remain quite unsatisfied
with the response I have received, and therefore would like to address the issue further.
I have thus quoted your reply, and will address points by responses embedded in the
quotation.
Thank you for your email of 13 December about Satellite
pornography. I have now received advice on the further issues you raised and considered
these issues carefully before replying. I do apologise for the time it has taken to reply
to your emails.
No problem. I can understand the delay considering the difficulty in providing the
justification of censorship which I seek from you.
You will be disappointed to learn that the Government position
in respect of the content of programmes on television as set out in my letter of 21 March
2000 remains unchanged.
Disappointed yes, surprised no.
As also said in my previous letter, there remain wide
differences in opinion about what is acceptable on television, but we consider that the
position taken in this respect has the support of Parliament and the public generally.
I have tried to point out, that mere opinion (regardless of whose opinion), is still no
justification whatsoever for what is after all state imposed censorship, and therefore a
restriction of human rights under article 10, freedom of expression. Such restriction
demands the *strictest* of justification, must be more than necessary, in a plural
society, after principles of tolerance and broad-mindedness have been applied. With all
due respect I hardly think that your reply citing simple public or political opinion
hardly consists of any form of justification at all!
Some direct questions which would be very easy to answer, if the restrictions imposed
by the government were at all justified and necessary in the way I understand the terms:
- How many people do you estimate would be harmed, if you did not impose the restriction ?
- Exactly what form would this harm take ?
- What evidence have you, that such harm was occuring, which justified the proscription
orders ?
- Why couldn't the harm be minimized by other legislation imposing the minimum of
restriction, on freeborn (?) adults, such as a requirement not to show sexually explicit
material to minors, or allow them to see it ? Why would only attempts of censorship
achieve the desired result ?
The Government takes very seriously its obligations under the
Television without Frontiers Directive and the European Convention on Human Rights, and
considers the action it takes under section 177 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to be in
conformity with those obligations.
Well, if so, then what is the necessity for the rather draconian TV censorshipl we have
in this country ?
I believe the government takes the need to pander to religious people, and the National
Viewers and Listener's Association very seriously indeed! I do not presently believe it
takes the rightful freedom of its citizens to express themselves [in this case via a
closed TV channel] very seriously. The continued proscription of broadcasters who show,
late at night equivalent material to R18 classified material, hasn't been justified and
the imposition of censorious mechanisms to prevent viewing is therefore, in my humble
opinion, nothing but unwarranted repression.
You point out that other countries allow sexually explicit
material to be broadcast, but countries are permitted a margin of appreciation in such
matters, and different countries may set different standards according to judgments
formed at a national level as to what is acceptable, without being in breach of their
obligations.
Acceptable ? Acceptable to whom ? They are (or were) quite acceptable to me.
The only criteria for such restriction (resulting in the possibility of people being
imprisoned for transgression) is proper evidence of harm. That some church goers may find
the material "unacceptable" (to them) isn't any reason for its restriction, when
those people can clearly make their own choice, about it, and it is confined to a
subscription channel, where access can be controlled by pin number etc. If they were to
have it imposed on them, say via free to air television, they might have a cause to
complain. But not when they don't have to involve themselves in it.
Public opinion, might well (and once did) support capital punishment, racial
discrimination, and the making homosexual acts illegal. But that doesn't make them right,
does it ?
As I have said the Government believes that its judgments in
this respect enjoy the support of Parliament and the public generally.
As I have said, the research by both the ITC and the BBFC has indicated that:
"Pornography may be shown, so long as it is legal, and on late at night" . The
BBFC on their web site, (which I've quoted) clearly indicates that public opinion no
longer supports such unjustified censorship, and people don't want a nanny state dictating
to them what they can and cannot see in the sanctity and privacy of their homes. I believe
that most British people have always felt like this, and the Mary Whitehouse types, and
the Daily Mail have distorted the real truth. Many conversations I have had with ordinary
people, lead me to believe this.
Sadly the government seems to be pandering to the repressive censorious bigots in
society, who will use any means they can, to impose narrow minded standards on the rest of
us, who *should* in a free society be allowed to make their own choices.
I hope, next time you consider proscription of a broadcaster of adult material, you
will remember this email, and ask yourself, as a free born (?) person yourself, if the
restriction the Government advocates really is necessary and justified ? As you have STILL
NOT provided justification in terms of both necessity, and harm, I am sure the answer will
be no. If the necessity to proscribe these services is so strong, you will have no
difficulty in providing it, by return email.
Justification should consist of evidence of harm which would ensue, if the freedom
clearly provided for in Article 10 of the EHCR was not subject to restriction.
The fact that some people don't like these kind of broadcasts, is in my view completely
irrelevant.
Thank you again for your reply. I am afraid, I still seek the justification as to why
it is necessary to impose proscription orders, on foreign broadcasters, who show material
which would be classified at R18
Yours sincerely,
Shaun Hollingworth.
Thank you for your email of 13 December about
Satellite pornography. I have now received advice on the further issues you raised
and considered these issues carefully before replying. I do apologise for the time it has
taken to reply to your emails. You will be disappointed to learn that the Government
position in respect of the content of programmes on television as set out in my
letter of 21 March 2000 remains unchanged.