Å

Paul (June)
Greg Lyons, Copy consultant, CAA (June)
Paul (June)

No Satisfaction from DCMS

24th June

Letter to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Broadcasting policy division.

I am writing to ask why a decision has not yet been made regarding broadcasting of "Satisfaction Channel" which was recommended for proscription by the ITC FOUR YEARS AGO, and why our own "Ofcom Licensed" so called "adult" channels are still subject to rather childish censorship of their content, in spite of the "Satisfaction Channel" remaining freely available.

If the "Satisfaction" channel really was so harmful, to justify any proscription order, surely you would have by now, enough evidence of REAL AND MANIFEST harm it has caused, which would be the only legitimate criteria you could use, to show that any restriction of this service, really was justified. If you do not provide such justification, it would be (and might even now be) a blatant violation of Human Rights, Article 10, Freedom Of Expression. Even though there are "get outs" in the HRA, I am certain that you really do have to justify any restriction, very strictly, by demonstrating a strict test of necessity, and then only take proportionate action. I would imagine then, that this means that the harm would have to be very real, and you would have to demonstrate such harm. Harm by the way, is not the same as "public opinion" which is still cited by Ofcom as justification for censorship of UK subscription channels, even when the viewers decide specifically for themselves that they wish to receive such content. Public opinion is no justification whatsoever where a restriction of our HUMAN RIGHTS are concerned.

If the harm caused by the "Satisfaction Channel" is not evident (and I firmly believe it is not evident) then why on earth has a decision not been made that it should continue to be permitted ? Just as importantly why are the providers of "adult" broadcasting (late night, subscription only) in this country, by cable and satellite, still subject to childish censorship (by severely restricting what they are allowed to show) activities by the new regulator Ofcom ?

I wish the minister responsible would either "put up" (evidence of harm) or "shut up" and tell us he intends to leave the broadcasters alone so that they can be free to show whatever they wish on restricted adults only PIN protected services, subject only to criminal law, which restricts what may be shown anywhere. This four year delay is now utterly ridiculous, and I think you are all making yourselves look rather inept, and perhaps even absurd.

You have not shown it to be necessary to proscribe the Satisfaction Channel, and the UK "adult" channel broadcasters should now be allowed to properly compete with this service if they wish to.

I would be grateful if the minister responsible or yourselves, could please shed some light on future plans for censorship of encrypted PIN protected subscription television and the reason for the delay in deciding the fate of "Satisfaction Channel" because I think this is a gross violation of Human Rights, which should be dealt with as soon as possible. I also think that "Satisfaction Channel" would have a good legal case against you were you to decide proscribe it after all this time....

I would be most grateful for a reply.

I am sorry that our reply to you was delayed. The possible proscription of Satisfaction TV - a foreign adult satellite service - raises complex legal issues which it has not yet been possible satisfactorily to resolve and it remains under consideration within the Department. I regret that we are at present unable to answer your enquiry about it in any more detail.

You also mention 'adult' TV channels licensed in the United Kingdom. As you may know, OFCOM - who have succeeded the ITC as the regulator of commercial television in the UK - are currently consulting on a proposed Broadcasting Code setting out the standards to which TV broadcasters licensed in this country must adhere. OFCOM's proposed Broadcasting Code is available on their website at www.ofcom.org.uk. They ask for responses by 5 October.

I hope you will take the point that this issue, raises serious Human Rights issues (a right to freedom of expression, limited only by harm is supposed to be ours) and a decision should not be delayed any longer. If there was evidence of harm, in proportion to any restriction you may wish to impose, it would have been obvious by now (after four years) surely ?

Ofcom currently advocate (according to their published consultation) maintaining a prohibition on domestic broadcasters showing the type of material broadcast by "satisfaction" but there seems to be no justification whatsoever for this either. Indeed they mention that the government "have found no evidence of harm"...

Given that Ofcom are currently using their licensing regime to maintain a clearly unjustified prohibition on more explicit so called "adult" material, it may even be **illegal** under European law for them to do so, given that the "expression" they currently prohibit, is legally available in the UK from other sources, such as sex-shops, importation from foreign retailers, and online.
 

Letter to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Broadcasting policy division.

It has come to my attention that MY right to Freedom of Expression as guaranteed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is being violated under the terms of Ofcom's Programme Code. Under the terms of the HRA, I have the Right to receive any legal material by any means. Indeed, in Groppera v. Switzerland 1990, the ECHR stated that "It is undisputed that a licensing system cannot be used to restrict access to any legally available material".
 
  Consensual sexual material is legal within the UK and is available via the BBFC R18 rating. Explicit sexual material is therefore legally available in the UK and therefore can be broadcast. However, clause 1.4(d) of the Ofcom Code states that "R18 material cannot be transmitted at any time". This is clearly in breach of the HRA and Case Law of the ECHR.
 
  The Code makes provision such that broadcasts with 'sufficient security', which includes encrypted transmissions, can bypass watershed restrictions however, this derogation is limited to 1.4(a)(b) and (c) ONLY. This is NOT lawful, as all and ANY legal material CAN be broadcast under the terms of Article 10. It seems more than reasonable to include clause 1.4(d) in the provisions for encrypted channels and still retain FULL protection to viewers of unencrypted channels.
 
  I wish for this matter to be raised with the 'Relevant Minister' in charge (whom I believe is Lord McIntosh). Under the terms of the HRA, the 'Relevant Minister' in charge must take all necessary steps to resolve any breach of Human Rights by Government legislation or Public Body. As Ofcom are a public body and the changes required to their Programme Code are perfunctory, I see no reason for this resolution to be delayed any longer. I, along with all 'adult entertainment' channel subscribers, have suffered this Rights Abuse since 2000 when the High Court decreed that explicit consensual sexual material was legal within the UK and made available via the BBFC R18 certificate. This Rights Abuse has obviously gone on quite long enough and I DEMAND it be resolved forthwith!

Blocking Human Rights?

11th June

Letter to the Internet Watch Foundation

Having read your article about the denial of access to child abuse web sites, on the Internet Watch Foundation web site, enabled by using a list of URLs supplied by BT, I have some questions to ask, and points to raise on behalf of readers of the Melon Farmer's Video Hits Web site

Whilst I am sure that those of us who are vehemently opposed to all acts of *unjustified* (in terms of real and manifest harm) media censorship/prohibition, (especially of so called adult material for the eyes of adults) will see this as a worthy and laudable attempt to protect children from further sexual and other forms of abuse, I do wonder about the use such technology might be put to in future, and any side effects it might have in limiting our right to freedom of expression ?

I therefore ask:

1. Will the content of the blocked URLs be kept under regular review ? Because in the event of the domain name changing ownership... (especially one which is not obviously linked to child pornography) ... IE: re-registration by someone else, the banned site if listed by URL, may contain perfectly legal, and possibly completely innocuous or even desirable material. Failure to somehow continuously monitor the blocked sites, would therefore lead to unnecessary censorship of **perfectly legal** material. For example - If "www.theyoungones.com" was a URL to an illegal child abuse site, got on this BT blacklist, and access to it was denied, then later the domain name became available for registration (or the original owner gave simply it away/sold it), then someone **else** might obtain it, and decide to build a site dedicated to the popular BBC television series or something!! Except the site would still be blocked, and people would not be able to access it would they ? How will this be dealt with ?
    
2. Is this going to be a "slippery slope" where material which is perfectly legal to own, will soon be censored, because the technology exists to prevent material which is legal to own, but perhaps illegal to distribute, is now in place ? I do not agree that the technology should be used to prevent access to ANY material that is legal itself to possess. For what it is worth I believe that the Obscene Publications Act is itself an illegal instrument (violating the Human Rights Act) because it does not specify clearly enough what the authorities consider to be obscene, and why. Under the Human Rights Act and case history in Europe, all "interferences" with freedom of expression by state authorities have to be strictly justified. Restrictions have to be provided for by clear laws. Clear enough so people can easily find out what is and is not prohibited. Having to put material in front of a jury, or magistrate, is not an "easy" way to determine the restrictions imposed by law, on freedom of expression!!!

A suggestion -

If we are to have site blocking and if it is considered a "pressing social need" and more than "necessary in a democratic society" the authorities, responsible for this whoever they may be, should MAKE ABSOLUTELY sure that no unnecessary censorship is taking place. SO rather than just pretending the page is unavailable might I suggest that a notice is displayed:

This site contains visual material which would be illegal to possess in the UK. We have not logged any technical information on your attempted access, as we realise you may have come to this page by accident.

The site's content was last checked on DD/MM/YYYY and illegal material was found to be hosted there on that date.

It will be checked again on DD/MM/YYYY

Nothing less would be good enough if Human Rights are to be properly complied with. ALSO people should be made AWARE that they are deliberately being CENSORED, regardless of the reason, legitimate as it may well be.

Such a scheme should ALSO be limited ONLY to material which would be illegal to possess.

For the purposes of the Human Rights Act, I consider the Internet Watch Foundation to be acting as a public authority dealing with internet content regulation. As it seems to endorse the above censorship scheme of Web URL blocking, I therefore feel it appropriate to make these enquiries.

  Question from SH:

Will the content of the blocked URLs be kept under regular review ?

Because in the event of the domain name changing ownership...

(especially one which is not obviously linked to child pornography)

Answers from IWF:

[What are the criteria for a URL to be added to the database of these sites?]

The sites are assessed according to British Law, specifically the 1978 Protection of Children Act. Any URL added to the database would be potentially illegal to download (make) in the UK.

[What happens once an illegal URL has been identified?]

It is traced to country of origin. If it is hosted in the UK then the IWF issues a ‘notice and takedown’ to the UK Content Service Provider and advises the National Crime Squads Paedophile Online Investigation Team (POLIT).

If the content is hosted abroad then it passes that information to the relevant hotline in that country if one exists and in any event to National Crime Squads Paedophile Online Investigation Team (POLIT) for onward transmission to Interpol.

[How do the IWF ensure the database is up-to-date?]

IWF database is dynamic with IWF staff adding URLs daily, averaging 65 new URLs each week.

[Is it possible for any of these websites hosting illegal content to suddenly host legal content?]

It is possible. We haven’t heard of any instances of websites/URLs containing illegal child abuse images to then suddenly post legal content but we take the point about the URL you highlight . If this happened, we would remove that URL from the database.

We have an appeals process in place for anyone wishing to request for their website/URL to be removed from the database. We would only remove it if it was proved that it no longer potentially breached the Protection of Children Act.

Question from SH:

Is this going to be a "slippery slope" where material which is perfectly legal to own, will soon be censored, because the technology exists to prevent material which is legal to own, but perhaps illegal to distribute, is now in place?

Answers from IWF:

[Will all ISPs now block this type of content?]

This is a voluntary act by BT and is not mandatory or obligatory for all/any ISPs or CSPs in the UK. All ISPs and internet services are different and have varying technical infrastructures – one solution doesn’t ‘fit all’. All members of the IWF have zero tolerance for illegal child abuse images and work in partnership with the IWF to minimise the availability of them and to prevent any abuse of their systems and services. However, such initiatives are not IWF policy but entirely a matter for the company. We understand the point about legal to own but illegal to distribute and from our discussions with ISPs we believe they share your opinion and would not be inclined to go any further with blocking arrangements. We encourage internet users to consider their own and their family needs and to take steps to apply their own blocking and filtering systems at client level.

Comments and Question from SH:

I do not agree that the technology should be used to prevent access to ANY material that is legal itself to possess. For what it is worth I believe that the Obscene Publications Act is itself an illegal instrument (violating the Human Rights Act) because it does not specify clearly enough what the authorities consider to be obscene, and why. Under the Human Rights Act and case history in Europe, all "interferences" with freedom of expression by state authorities have to be strictly justified. Restrictions have to be provided for by clear laws. Clear enough so people can easily find out what is and is not prohibited. Having to put material in front of a jury, or magistrate, is not an "easy" way to determine the restrictions imposed by law, on freedom of expression!!!

Comments and Answer from IWF:

The IWF only provide child abuse website URLs to BT. All the URLs are assessed according to the very clear UK legislation on child abuse images which *are* illegal to view. This is not content assessed against the Obscene Publications Act.

Suggestion from SH:

If we are to have site blocking and if it is considered a "pressing social need" and more than "necessary in a democratic society" the authorities, responsible for this whoever they may be, should MAKE ABSOLUTELY sure that no unnecessary censorship is taking place. SO rather than just pretending the page is unavailable might I suggest that a notice is displayed:

Answer from IWF:

Your suggestions are a matter for BT.

Comment from SH:

Such a scheme should ALSO be limited ONLY to material which would be illegal to possess.

Comment from IWF:

It is – see above.

Labour Create Generations of Sex Offenders

10th June

What has happened to Labour? Once seen as the opponents of right-wing repressive notions of morality, it now seems the Left are more conservative than the Tories! The recent introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, places restrictions upon normal human sexual behaviour even Mrs Thatcher would not have considered 'harmful'. Despite all studies into normal child sexual development, much of which has been known since the 1950s, the Home Office has forced into UK legislation an Act which, has the potential to create complete generations of sex offenders.


The law now actively persecutes the tentative and explorative steps every healthy child must pass through on their way to sexual maturity. I saw my first vulva when I was 3 or 4 years old, playing naked, with other toddlers on Scarborough beach. As a child of 10 or 12, I remember distinctly playing harmless explorative role-playing games like 'mommies and daddies' or 'doctors and nurses' with our neighbour's (older) daughter. These were/are common and necessary steps every child passes through as they discover their own sexual identity and place in society as a sexual being.


Why then has the Home Office chosen to outlaw sexual contact between children? A child is protected by law because we recognise they are not responsible enough to behave like adults and are prone to make mistakes in judgement. It is one thing to prosecute children of 10 years of age for murder, it is quite another to prosecute a 10 year old for behaving like a normal human being! The fact of the matter is, child psychologists have know for many years that to interrupt this normal innocent curiosity children display as they mature, can result in deviant sexual behaviour later in life. More to the point, this interruption is known to result in the creation of paedophiles! Indeed, studies have revealed that children from repressive and overtly religious environments are far more likely to display deviance in later life than are children brought up in permissive or sexually open environments.


It seems then, that the UK's obsession with suppressing our very sexuality, under the auspices of 'Christian' or 'Victorian' moral values, is at the root of our society's problems with paedophilia and sex crime. If the recent and totally disproportionate cases of paedophiles amongst the Catholic Priesthood are not proof enough that suppression of our sexuality is harmful, then it is difficult to see what is. It may be extremely difficult for the exponents of 'sexual morality' to accept but, the fact is, we are programmed to grow into adults for the purpose of procreation. Nature has had 2 million years to perfect human reproduction and there is very little we can do to control our very purpose for being. Obviously, we can cause enormous psychological damage to ourselves if we attempt to suppress our natural instincts. In this respect, it is clear that the age-old policies of the Church and Government are directly responsible for the levels of sexual abuse now prevalent in the UK.


Furthermore, the fear of sexual abuse and the measures the Government and indeed parents, are now extolling to combat this situation are, quite simply, going to make matters far far worse! How can people believe our laws are helping combat sexual abuse, when sexual abuse has been on the increase since the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act 1857? The definition of insanity is: 'to keep doing the same things and expect different results'. The Church, the Government, our censors and various self-appointed media watchdogs are perpetuating this insanity in the vain hope they will eventually apply enough restrictions to combat the problem. They never will, because it is these misguided restrictions that created the problem in the first instance!


I will state with total conviction that Mr. Blair's religious inclinations, coupled with Mr. Blunkett's ignorance of the facts, is now threatening to produce an entire society of paedophiles and rapists. It is high time all of our repressive legislation was recognised for the misguided, rights abusing and dangerous trash it really is. It needs binning, and it needs binning now, before many more women and children have their lives destroyed. To put some real perspective on this problem, almost 50 women and children suffer some form of sexual assault every day - in the 30 minutes it's taken to write this article, someone somewhere in the UK has been sexually assaulted! That's a staggering 17000 lives ruined every year through nothing more than a belief that sex is 'dirty' and it must be kept under-wraps else it 'hurts' someone. Insanity indeed!



Ian G.



References:


A history of the Obscene Publications Act (BBC h2g2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A679016


Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 13 - sexual contact between persons under
18)
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#13


Why The Act is Indecent, an article by Prof. John Spencer QC
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/opsexoff.htm


CHILD SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT, Loretta Haroian, Ph.D.
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm

Euro Breasts

To The Cinema Advertising Association

With reference to your recent decision to censor a picture of a woman breast feeding an infant from an EU cinema advertisement. Why did you think it was necessary to protect the public from such a harmless activity? This action will undoubtedly have offended a large number of people, will have sent totally the wrong message regarding breast feeding and has made the British the laughing stock of Europe. Who’s interests do you think you acting in?
 

This is in response to your letter of complaint about the reported censorship of breastfeeding in a European Parliamentary Election commercial. No doubt you will see the advertisement in due course and judge for yourself.

When regulating cinema advertising the CAA must make judgements based on the British Codes of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing. One of those judgements is deciding what may or may not offend the public. The image of breast feeding was considered totally acceptable and positive.

However, the CAA Copy Panel was concerned that a preliminary image of the nude woman’s bare breast, occupying the entire screen in a close up, would be seen as being sensational in the context of election advertising. The Panel therefore requested that this image alone should be removed so that the act of breast-feeding itself could be seen with any category of film without causing offence.

Sadly, the agency took upon itself to remove material beyond that requested by the CAA.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write to us. The CAA appreciates all comments from the public in order to maintain standards in cinema advertising and keep inline with the expectations of the public in general.
 

No doubt you will see the advertisement in due course and judge for yourself:

No I won’t will I? The sequence in question has been cut so unless I travel to the continent I will not be able to judge for myself.

One of those judgements is deciding what may or may not offend the public:

Count one member of the public as being very offended by your actions. I wonder how what percentage of the population would really be seriously offended in 2004?

Sadly, the agency took upon itself to remove material beyond that requested by the CAA:

Or to put it another way Greg, you were sad that the agency decided to cut content that you would have preferred was left in? Well censorship is a very two edged sword and its only too easy to get cut.

Tolerating TV Ratings

Dear Melon Farmers,

I have just read your article on the proposed age ratings system for Television. I am all in favour of this if it gives parents the information as to what types of programmes are being shown, and as to the content regarding sex, violence, swearing etc.

Contrary to what the pro-censorship lobby claim those of us who are opposed to extreme censorship of the media do not want to see unsuitable material shown to children. None of us would advocate putting a film full of sex, blood, gore and four letter words put on at 5pm in the afternoon.

But after the watershed we would like to see some leeway given, and for adults to be given the choice as to what they find acceptable and non acceptable as regards to content.

However, it is doubtful that an age rating system will silence the voice of the pro-censorship campaigners. That will never happen until everything they deem unsuitable for our eyes and ears is eradicated from the media altogether.

Where's the Sex Gone?

To the Adult Channel

I can't help but notice the hardcore you have been transmitting for the past few weeks seems to have ceased?

My Ofcom contacts have not reported any complaints and indeed this move toward hardcore created quite a positive response in many chat rooms on the web.

I hope this is only a temporary stoppage. If h/c is not returned to our screens soon I'm sure many people like myself will cancel their subscriptions. I think your experiment has proven conclusively that the British public are more than ready to receive h/c via subscription TV. The usual press noise, Mediawatch outcries etc. have been noticeable by their absence. Obviously, the people who might complain about h/c sex on TV are not watching sex channels - so no one has anything to complain about except your subscribers...

The Government used an argument based on 'national appreciation' last time they defended THEIR right to restrict what the public can receive in the privacy of their own homes. It is now very unlikely that this argument holds any water, for at least 75% of the population AGREE that explicit sex SHOULD be on TV - this can been seen in the BSC/ITC annual surveys from 1997-2003, The Public's View (Table 56,2) - The question reads "If people wish to pay more to receive particularly explicit sexual material, they should be allowed to do so?" A consistent 75% of a random selection of people said yes to this question year in and out, with more than half (equivalent to 40% of the UK population) in STRONG AGREEMENT.

Thankfully, Ms Hodgson has been relieved of her duties with the ITC. She can no longer 'protect' the moral wellbeing of perfectly healthy males in this country. Although she vehemently defended her belief that the ITC Code was compliant with Human Rights legislation (it is however in complete contradiction to the HRA and ECHR case law), she did concede several months before Ofcom took over that, the ITC Code probably DID need reviewing in light of R18 changes and changing public opinion.

If I may present an argument that everyone seems to have overlooked. As a Broadcaster you run a web site that transmits hardcore sex to subscribing members. Your freedom to do this is bound only by what the law considers to be a danger to public health and morals as given in the OPA. However, as a Broadcaster of a satellite channel you may not transmit the same hardcore sex to subscribing members even though the purpose of this restriction is for the protection of the same health and morals...? It seems either the TV Guidelines you were issued with your Broadcast License are in breach of Human Rights law or, your web site is transmitting illegal material. The Comms Act 2003 requires Ofcom to maintain 'generally accepted standards', the only standards these can be measured to are those expressed in the OPA or the HRA. If challenged under Human Rights legislation this anomaly in the TV Guidelines would be seen for what it is. I stress it is the TV Guidelines not the Law which is at fault. It is a completely unnecessary restriction on our freedom to transmit and to receive information and ideas WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. This is the law in Britain today. The ECHR have already stated that "A licensing system cannot be used to impose restrictions on the broadcast of any legally available material" - I don't think legal precedents come any clearer than that. Since June 2000 hardcore sex has been legally available in Britain. Every piece of legislation in force today makes it clear that TV channels have the legitimate right to broadcast any legal material (if the upper bounds on sexual content are those given by the BBFC's R18 so be it, however, there is an argument that as long as the material cannot be shown to cause harm to health and morals then anything is permissible).

I've been a subscriber to TAC for more years than I care to remember. Your recent 'experiment', or whatever it was, has not only made a mockery of the ITC Code but, to remove this material after 2 weeks with no major public uproar (or any type of announcement) really is taking the piss! If the TV code permits lesbian hardcore why hasn't this been on air since 1990? Whether the removal of this material is your fault or Ofcom's, I don't think it matters, who ever is responsible for removing this material must think the public are idiots. It's too late to start back-peddling now. Any fool can see that a) this material has not been rated R18 so it passes the first ITC hurdle and, b) without the presence of a penis the law doesn't recognise 'real sex' can take place and this passes the 2nd ITC hurdle. (If this hadn't occurred to you then maybe you should put the material back on air - as you can see it's perfectly allowable within the ITC rules (it always has been)!!)

As Ofcom have introduced a procedure to report grievances with the Guidelines (a first in TV watchdog history - and no small thanks to thanks to Paul Tavener at www.ofwatch.org.uk) then, if this has anything to do with Ofcom please let myself or Paul know. Paul is in regular contact with Ofcom and, Ofwatch as a whole (indeed the whole anti-censorship community) would like to hear any (inside) news on this matter.

As I'm sure you can tell I'm extremely disappointed and angered by this U-turn. So much so that if hardcore is not coming back in the next month then you can take this as notice of my intention to cancel my subscription. I hope my fellow libertarians will follow suit and vote with their credit cards.

If you wish to defend your decision to cease h/c transmission or, you feel you 'might' owe your subscribers an explanation then please feel free to respond. I would genuinely like to hear your side of the story.

It was good while it lasted

Thank you for your complaint about the content of programmes on the Adult Channel, which has been passed to me for response. I also note your e-mails of 11 and 13 May.
 
Ofcom is currently reviewing all the Programme Codes inherited from the ITC and BSC. I can assure you that the points you raise about the acceptability/legality (or not) of R18 type material are among the issues being considered in detail. There will be formal consultation on the new Codes this summer, with a view to them (hopefully) being published by the end of the year.
 
In the meantime, the existing Codes continue to be applied. For information, there has been no change in the rules, and no change in Ofcom's interpretation of those rules. 
 

on www.digitalspy.co.uk/satellite forums

Well, I emailed Ofcom to ask why the Adult Channel had reverted back to it's softcore farcical programming and this is the reply I got, doesn't make promising reading...

Thank you for contacting us about this subject. I doubt that anything I say will alter your opinion that 'hardcore' material should be allowed on Ofcom licensed adult services. But I hope that I can at least demonstrate that our policy is a considered one that seeks to balance the various interests.

Adult services have been allowed on cable and satellite services for a decade now. They include programming more explicit than would be allowed on free-to-air or basic package channels. Much of the programming is cut down hardcore. Our research indicates, however, that public opinion does not favour a move to wholly explicit programming of the sort now available in 'R18'-rated videos. These videos are available only in licensed sex shops, and the broadcasters have to respect the law on this matter.

So a balance is struck between the legitimate wishes of adults to see sex programming and concerns over child protection. Broadcasting is not obviously suited to providing material otherwise available only in a hundred or so specialist shops where access by children can be easily policed. Even where encryption and other security measures can be applied, the wide distribution of the most explicit material must be a significant issue.

Thank you for raising this with us.

Yours sincerely

Alistair Hall
Broadcast Team Officer - Contact Centre
Office of Communications
Riverside House
2A Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
www.ofcom.org.uk

To  Ofcom

I 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.

As I am sure you are aware, it is one of Ofcom's most important tasks,
this year, to draw up a new Programme Code, for broadcasters, to
replace existing ITC and BSC regulations. The process is well
underway. In fact a formal consultation period - involving the TV
industry; the viewing public; interest groups; and many others -
begins later this month.


All aspects of the codes are under consideration, including the issues
you raise in your e-mail. In the mean time the existing ITC and BSC
codes are being applied.


Finally I note your wish to have this matter "investigated by someone
other than a former offices of the Independent Television Commission".
I am afraid the answer - for now - would be the same whoever
responded.


Please be assured that your views and legal opinions, are very well
documented.

Å