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.
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. 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 177of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to be in conformity with those
obligations.
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. As I have said
the Government believes that its judgments in this respect enjoy the
support of Parliament and the public generally.
Yours sincerely
Alan Castleton
Shaun's response clearly highlights some of
the weaknesses in the Government's 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.
13th November 1998.