To OfcomI am emailing to strongly
protest about current levels of inane censorship still imposed by Ofcom
upon broadcasters of so called "adult" (Ofcom licenced) satellite and
cable TV channels (under the old ITC guidelines) and the justification
which is still cited by you, for such restriction still being imposed.
This justification seems to be little more than largely discredited
"evidence" that "public opinion would not favour allowing more explicit
services" etc. even though published research conducted by the BSC, ITC,
and especially the BBFC have clearly arrived at a different conclusion. My
own enquiries also indicate this as well.
How can we trust the future decisions of Ofcom, if such easily refutable
justification for the restrictions they are currently imposing, are all
Ofcom are prepared to offer ?
Please consider that if Human Rights Legislation is to be properly abided
by, (and you are legally required to abide by it, as I am sure you know)
then CENSORSHIP (which is what the current restrictions really are about)
ought to be regarded as a necessary evil, kept to a minimum, and justified
ONLY by proper evidence of real and manifest harm which would occur if the
freedom were not allowed, on an encrypted television service, which would
not be seen by accident to those not electing to subscribe to such a
service.
In any case people's views... (who have no need to subscribe to such an
adult service themselves if they do not wish to)
...about the content and availability of adult broadcasts, should not
really be cited as any kind of factor when justifying censorship policy,
unless those people also provided provable evidence of real and manifest
harm which would be caused without it. Ofcom should simply NOT be a CENSOR
for the sake of it! However I strongly feel that censorship has (all to
often) been imposed on us in the past, because of the personal views
(perhaps religious) of high ranking people involved in broadcasting
regulation, rather than any rational analysis of those facts which can be
examined by all of us. Evidence from Europe where 24 hour broadcasting of
none violent but explicit sex material is now permitted, has not shown any
evidence of harm whatsoever as far as I know, and if it has, surely Ofcom
would know about it would they not ? The BBFC's own research has also not
shown harm, in cases where young people have accidently seen this kind of
programming.
Protection of children is of course a concern, but with the newer digital
transmissions and the ability and/or requirement to "pin" protect certain
types of programmes, it is most unlikely that children would be able to
view such broadcasts accidentally, or be able to take their own steps to
do so. I have no concerns about my own son and daughter (ages 10, and 12)
seeing such material, with the mechanisms currently available on Sky
digital. BUT I am more concerned that they should be able to make their
own choices when they are adults, a choice I've NEVER really had. In just
over seven short years, they will be adults themselves. I sincerely hope
they do not continue to be treated as children to be censored, by Ofcom,
as we all currently seem to be!
The "Video Recordings Act" is also cited as justification for restriction,
but I would remind Ofcom, that this act does not apply to broadcasting,
otherwise everything which is broadcast would have to be pre vetted by the
BBFC. Clearly this is not the case, and therefore such justificatin also
should not be cited.
Government advice, from my own enquiries at the Department of Culture,
Media and Sport, clearly stated that it was for Ofcom themselves to decide
what was and was not allowed on various licensed television services,
provided the Obscene Publications Act, and the Protection of Children Act
etc. was not breached, by the content of those services.
Currently Ofcom seem merely to regurgitate ITC justifications about public
opinion on so called "adult channels", and this is most unacceptable. I
believe our rights are being strongly infringed by the current UK
censorship regime, (which across the board is a complete disgrace) and I
wonder how much faith we can hope to have in the integrity of Ofcom, if
all its officers seem prepared to do, is to provide people with little
more than discredited propaganda used by the ITC to justify patently
unfair restrictions ? As the censorious restrictions currently imposed on
ofcom Licensed Adult Channels seems to be disproportionate (to say the
least) and largely unnecessary, may I suggest this is reviewed as a matter
of urgency, because it is a violation of Article 10, freedom of
expression, in the Human Rights Act ? Regardless of any other factor, any
censorship IS automatically a violation of the HRA, and the ONLY question
to be answered is if it is a JUSTIFIED violation which would be permitted.
But the Human Rights Act is surely not an instrument to be cast
aside,simply by citing the "get out" clauses in the various articles. I
believe MUCH more than this is required of those who are involved in the
business of the restriction of the rights of other people.
People in this country, have been allowed to receive European adult
broadcasts via satellite unimpeded for the last three years or more,
(whilst the government still "consider" their position on "Satisfaction
Television" ) and I would suggest that IF the evidence existed to justify
restriction of this, or any Ofcom licensed broadcast you would know it by
now, after all this time. IE if the HARM caused was in proper proportion
to the restrictions currently imposed in your guidelines, you'd be EASILY
able to demonstrate that it would occur, or indeed has occurred whilst the
European services have been legitimately marketed in this country.
Here in this country "R18" material is not legally obscene, and should be
allowed to be broadcast on encrypted Pin protected restricted channels.
When the policy on Sex shops was decided, parliament did so, for the prime
reason to prevent those people who did not wish to see such material from
doing so, and to prevent children from being able to purchase such
material. They could not consider digital encrypted broadcasts, which were
pin protected because at the time it would be bordering on science
fiction. Such channels probably afford more protection to children, than
do tapes purchased from licenced sex shops.
I would finally wish to state that people such as myself, should not have
to beg for their freedom. However for the past ten years, I have had to do
exactly this, and have never received any proper evidence from any
regulator that secular harm would occur, proportionate to the restrictions
imposed by them. Institutions (such as Ofcom) who wish to take away
people's freedoms, should justify why it is proportionate and absolutely
necessary to do so, and continue to justify it, for each and every
restriction they impose.
I would be grateful if this complaint about which is about unnecessary
censorship of adult channels, could be investigated by someone *other*
than a former officer of the Independent Television Commission, as I don't
currently have much faith in any of them.
Thank you for your time.
I wait the justification for the current restrictions, or advice that
these are to be revised as a matter of urgency. If the latter is the case
I hope my arguments will be carefully considered, and any refutation of
them communicated to me either by Email or by post.
