Crawling On…The British ban on Human Centipede 2 seems to be holding but at least it is generating good publicity for the Australian release

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

22nd August Thanks to Mark See Tom Six, The BBFC and The Human Centipede 2 Censorship Debacle from bleedingcool.com

There’s plenty of interest at the moment in Australia about the upcoming release of The Human Centipede Part 2 (The Full Sequence). The British film censor’s ban on the film is providing good press hype for the uncut Australian release. The last I heard about the British ban, is that the rather secretive appeal is in progress. However an interview with Tom Six, the director, reveals that the Video Appeals Committee has twice rejected the appeal and the distributors are now in the process of going to High Court. Apparently they’ve spoken to a lawyer who confirms that the film isn’t obscene and are now looking for a barrister to defend their case in court. Offsite: Interview with Tom Six re the BBFC Appeal 31st August 2011. Thanks to Mark. See interview from horror-movies.ca Q: Have you got anything to say to the BBFC? Tom Six: Oh, I’ve got lots of things to say, you can imagine. When I first heard it I wanted to thank them so much for their incredible publicity, but now I’m getting really annoyed. They didn’t agree with our appeal, so it’s looking not good, and I’m really angry now, because how can they say to adults you can’t watch this film? It’s incredible, and I’m really sad because the UK is the country that gave the world the black humour of Monty Python and Little Britain, and in my film; part 1 and part 2, there’s a lot of black humour. I’m so disappointed they’re so humourless. … Q: Do you see the BBFC ban being lifted any time soon? Tom Six: Well, they have rejected our second appeal, so now the distributor has to go to a barrister or court, I’m not sure how that works, so it looks not very good. The film is not obscene, a lawyer said that and we have to get a barrister saying that. We have to find a way, I’m fighting my ass off with the distributor to find a way to show the film in the UK. …Read the full interview

Nutter at the Helm…Claire Perry to head yet another Parliamentary inquiry child protection on the internet

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from publicaffairs.linx.net

Parliament has announced a another inquiry into online child safety, to be headed by Conservative MP and anti-porn campaigner Claire Perry. She got noticed due to her impractical campaign to force ISPs to block porn unless people opt to receive it. According to a press release on Claire Perry’s constituency website, the inquiry will seek: 1) To understand better the extent to which children access on-line pornography and the potential for harm that this may cause 2) To determine what British Internet Service Providers have done to date to protect children online and the extent and possible impact of their future plans in this area 3) To determine what additional tools parents require to protect children from inappropriate content 4) To establish the arguments for and against network level filtering of content that would require an 18 rating in other forms of media 5) To recommend to Government the possible form of regulation required if ISPs fail to meet Recommendation no.5 from the Bailey Review. Public evidence sessions will take place in Committee Room 7, House of Commons between 14:00 and 16:00 on September 8th and October 18th. The inquiry will include approximately 60 MPs and gather feedback from ISPs as well as parents and many others [but probably not those who actually enjoy adult material on the internet]. A final report is expected in November 2011.

WHSmith Recommend…WHSmith ban Garage magazine with Damien Hurst tattoo on the cover

Read more Magazine News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from artinfo.com

Dasha Zhukova’s new art and fashion magazine, Garage, has received some good publicity from WHSmith. The newsagent and distributer has banned the publication before it hit the newsstands. The offending cover features a closeup shot of a Damien Hirst-designed butterfly tattoo as displayed by a 23-year-old model.

Miracle Olive Oil Soap…Ofcom considers sanctions against Believe TV for potentially harmful nonsense about a miracle cure for cancer

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Believe TV 21 and 22 December 2010, 4 January 2011 and 1 February 2011 Believe TV is a service which broadcasts Christian programming. The channel broadcasts programmes which include testimony, where members of the churches featured proclaim how health problems, financial issues or other personal matters have been alleviated through healing from a pastor or other religious leader and their faith in God. Believe TV also features other Christian programming including preaching and healing from churches in the UK and around the world. The licence for Believe TV is held by The Light Academy Limited. In January 2011 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) informed Ofcom that it had written to the Licensee regarding the broadcast on Believe TV of two programmes, featuring the televangelist. Paul Lewis, on 21 and 22 December 2010. Both programmes featured Paul Lewis’s Miracle Olive Oil Soap. which it was claimed has healing properties that can cure serious illnesses such as cancer. The ASA informed Light Academy that these broadcasts contained similar claims by Paul Lewis to those which had already been the subject of an ASA adjudication in May 2007. Further, the ASA advised the Licensee that Ofcom had also previously recorded breaches of the Broadcasting Code in relation to content containing similar claims by Paul Lewis that had been transmitted by two other broadcasters in 2008. In response to the ASA, the Light Academy confirmed that Paul Lewis Ministries content had now been removed from its schedules as of 24 December 2010 onwards, and that in any event the content was editorial and not advertising. The ASA therefore referred the material to Ofcom for further investigation, as well as further material broadcast on Believe TV (not featuring Paul Lewis) the ASA had recorded on 4 January 2011. Ofcom reviewed this material and agreed that the content being investigated in this case should be regarded as editorial and not advertising and therefore that the Code applied. Separately Ofcom was also concerned that other material broadcast on Believe TV, on these three dates, contained examples of potentially unsubstantiated and dangerous claims about the healing of serious conditions such as infertility and cancer. Ofcom considered that such material raised potentially serious issues under the Code. In particular, Ofcom was concerned about the risk that as a result of watching the testimonies and preaching, viewers with serious medical conditions would either not seek or discontinue conventional medical treatment. Ofcom also notified the Licensee of its concerns about the apparent promotion of products such as CDs and DVDs in some of its programming. Ofcom noted further broadcast content which raised similar issues, for example: hCancer healing testimonies and claims. Members of the congregation claiming to give up their medication as a result of the receiving healing at the church. Members of the congregation claiming to have disregarded conventional medical advice and treatment in favour of healing at the church. Infertility healing testimonies and claims. Claims of healing of other serious medical illnesses, for example: blood pressure problems, heart disease and drug and alcohol addictions. Ofcom considered: Rule 2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. Rule 4.6: Religious programmes must not improperly exploit any susceptibilities of the audience. Rule 10.2: Broadcasters must ensure that the advertising and programme elements of a service are kept separate. Rule 10.3: Products and services must not be promoted in programmes. This rule does not apply to programme-related material. Ofcom Decision: In Breach Given that some viewers who may have watched this material may also have been suffering from serious medical conditions, and were therefore likely to be in a vulnerable state, Ofcom also concluded that this material clearly had the potential to cause harm, and possibly very serious harm. In view of the fact that the Licensee did not take steps to provide viewers with adequate protection from this potential harm by providing any context to the claims made, Ofcom concluded that the Licensee did not apply generally accepted standards. Rule 2.1 was therefore breached. Given that the content was also soliciting a response from viewers and such individuals experiencing serious illnesses may be vulnerable to the healing claims being made, Ofcom concluded that there was a material risk that susceptible members of the audience may be exploited by the material broadcast on Believe TV. This was a breach of Rule 4.6. Ofcom also considered that the references to the products were made in such a highly promotional manner that they appeared akin to advertising within a programme. Ofcom therefore also found the programmes in breach of Rule 10.2 and 10.3 of the Code. The Licensee broadcast material where there was a likelihood that significant potential harm may have resulted. It is Ofcom’s view that any material broadcast which may lead to a material risk to the health and safety of the audience must always be considered a significant breach of the Code. In deciding what further regulatory action to take in this case. Ofcom considered that at no time were steps taken by the Licensee to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harm or exploitation, taking into account the fact that the self selecting audience of Believe TV, given that it is a religious service, may have been less likely to question the potentially harmful and exploitative content broadcast. The Licensee is put on notice that the breaches of Rules 2.1 and 4.6 in this case are being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.

Dangerous Tweets…Social networking underpins an increase in British libel cases

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from independent.co.uk

The growing use of social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook are thought to be the main cause of the surge after a year which saw internet-related libel cases in England and Wales rise from seven to 16. The singer Courtney Love is among those who have fallen foul of online defamation laws. She is being sued for a second time for posting defamatory statements on Twitter. Ms Love paid $430,000 (£263,000) to settle a lawsuit brought against her by the designer Dawn Simonrangkir in March after calling her a nasty lying hosebag thief on Twitter in a dispute over money. The barrister Korieh Duodu, a media specialist with Addleshaw Goddard, said a good deal of material on the internet is written by non-professionals without any of the fact-checking in traditional media organisations: There is certainly a need for greater accountability of the providers of user-generated content. He added: People who find themselves damaged on social media sites can find it time-consuming and difficult to have the offending material removed, because many platform providers do not accept responsibility for their users’ content. The UK Government is looking to reform the law with a draft Defamation Bill, currently going through Westminster, which ministers say will help to ensure that people can state honest opinions on the internet with confidence.

3D Sex and Zen Forcibly Consensualised…The BBFC further explain their cuts

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbfc.co.uk

3D Sex and Zen is a 2011 Hong Kong erotic drama by Christopher Sun Lap Key. See IMDb An already short version was passed 18 after 2:48s of BBFC cuts for: UK 2011 cinema release IMDb notes that there is an 129 minute version and that the Hong Kong cinema release was noted as 118 minutes after local censor cuts The BBFC further explained (ignoring a rather redundant explanation that the film goes beyond a 15 rating): 3D SEX AND ZEN EXTREME ECSTASY is a Chinese erotic period drama about a recently married young man who embarks on a sexual odyssey when his wife is unable to satisfy his sexual desires. The film was classified 18 for strong sex, violence, nudity and sexual violence. There are frequent sequences of strong sex and nudity which include sight of a man sucking a woman’s nipples, pubic nudity in a sexual context, sight of a man’s erect penis, buttock thrusting implying penetration, and implied but masked fellatio and cunnilingus. Before the film was classified 18, the BBFC required cuts in two scenes. In the first scene, a man rapes a woman, with the woman then going on to enjoy the sex. The scene is shot in the same eroticised style as the rest of the film and creates the impression that rape can be an enjoyable and exciting erotic experience. The scene was cut to remove the non consensual set up, leaving a purely consensual sex scene. In the second scene, a man engages in violent sex with a woman. Although the sex is consensual, the man beats and whips the woman during sex, before finally suffocating her to death as he thrusts into her. The scene, which is filmed in the same eroticised style as other scenes, creates a strong link between violence and sexual arousal. Although the BBFC suggested that the scene could be reduced to an acceptable level by multiple cuts, the distributor chose to remove the scene in its entirety. Both scenes breach the terms of the Guidelines at 18 which state the BBFC may cut any portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault.

Didn’t Even Merit Discussion…David Cameron’s Chinese style internet ban dismissed without discussion

Read more UK Government Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

Theresa May met with bosses of social network sites in Westminster to discuss whether users should be blocked if they are plotting to riot or commit crimes David Cameron’s plan to shut down social networking sites to prevent disorder was ditched in a humiliating U-turn. The Home Secretary Theresa May firmly killed off the prospect of any clampdown in the face of opposition from human rights groups and social networking companies. In a summit with Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion, the Home Secretary indicated that Cameron’s plan did not even merit discussion. She told the firms that she was not there to talk about restricting internet services. Instead May appealed for help, seeking advice on how law enforcement could more effectively use social media. Social networking firms are said to have advised police to employ internet monitoring firms to help keep an eye on public chatter on the web. The Government’s retreat came after leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Index on Censorship, wrote to the Home Secretary voicing strong concerns about a possible clampdown. The coalition of ten human rights and free speech advocates said: Dear Home Secretary, We are writing to you regarding discussions scheduled to take place between the Government and some social network and communications providers following the recent civil unrest. We noted the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the Government will look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. We believe that Twitter, Research in Motion and Facebook have been invited to meet you to discuss this issue. As you know, there is existing legislation regulating the interception and disclosure of communications information, the use of communications evidence by law enforcement and restrictions on people’s use of communications technology. It is reasonable to review the existing legal regime to ensure that it appropriately fits new technologies. However, turning off, restricting or monitoring people’s communications networks are matters that require extreme care and open, detailed deliberation. We are very concerned that new measures, made in good faith but in a heated political environment, will overextend powers in ways that would be susceptible to abuse, restrict legitimate, free communication and expression and undermine people’s privacy. This is especially so if proposals involve unaccountable voluntary arrangements between law enforcement and communications providers. It is essential that any review of regulations covering communications networks happens through a public consultation, with full details of meetings between the Government and social network platforms made public as soon as possible. This should involve a genuine multi-stakeholder process that includes not only the communications providers but groups representing broader citizens’ rights such as freedom of expression and privacy. We would like to request a meeting to discuss these issues, and look forward to engaging with you further. Yours sincerely, Amnesty UK Article 19 English PEN Index on Censorship Liberty Open Democracy Open Rights Group Privacy International and others

Shameful Scottish ‘justice’ dooms the Naked Rambler to another 2 years in jail beyond the 5 years he has already served

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbc.co.uk

Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has been jailed for another 657 days after enjoying less than 60 seconds of freedom. He was arrested outside Perth Prison almost immediately after he was released from his previous 21-month sentence, itself a continuation of the sentence now stretching back more than 5 years to May 2006. He was found guilty of breaching the peace and being in contempt of court. he has now been behind bars in Scotland for much of the past decade. He was found guilty of breach of the peace after a ‘trial’ at Perth Sheriff ‘Court’, which was initially held up while court staff found a sheet of brown paper for him to sit on for hygiene reasons. Gough appeared naked in the court dock and was also found guilty of contempt of ‘court’ for failing to display the decency required by the court process. He claimed that arresting him for walking around naked was a breach of his human rights and his right to freedom of expression. Repeated arrests But ‘Sheriff’ Michael Fletcher rejected Gough’s defence and found him guilty of conducting himself in a disorderly manner by walking naked, refusing to put clothes on, and breaching the peace in Manson Terrace, Perth, on 20 July. ‘Sheriff’ Fletcher said: The court expects people to come here in a decent state of dress. That has been explained to you in the past. I gave you the opportunity to dress yourself.

Police Victim…Sounds like a jokey video clip has put an end to a policeman’s career

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from menmedia.co.uk

A policeman caught with a supposed extreme animal pornography on his mobile phone has quit the force. Gareth Tench was arrested by fellow Manchester policeman after they found a supposedly grossly offensive 35-second video clip featuring a horse. He was spared jail after being convicted by a jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court, but his nine-year police career is over. Tench was being investigated by fellow police over an unconnected allegation when they found the clip on both his personal phone and a folder called chill out on his computer. He admitted receiving the video in July 2006, saying it had been sent as an attachment to a text message. Tench accepted he had watched the clip once, but said he had then deleted the message and with it, he believed, the video. The court heard that when his mobile became faulty, he had data,  including photographs and images, transferred from the mobile on to a laptop, and ultimately to his home computer. The court was told that after being arrested in January 2010, he gave no comment answers to all questions about the video. Tench was found guilty of possession of extreme pornography on his phone. But the jury cleared him of an almost identical charge of having the same clip on his computer because they could not be certain he knew it was there. He was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,000 costs. Supt Peter Turner, from the Greater Mancheter Police Professional Standards Branch, said: Possessing extreme pornography is a serious and criminal offence and Pc Tench’s conduct has fallen well short of the high levels of professionalism and integrity expected from all our staff.

Not So Complete…New UK DVD release for South Park Season 14 is totally missing the 2 controversial episodes featuring Mohammed

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

South Park Season 14 is a US 2010 TV cartoon comedy. See IMDb A version with just 12 out of the 14 episodes was passed 15 without BBFC cuts for: UK 2011 Paramount R2 DVD for release on 19th September The two controversial episodes titled 200 and 201 have been omitted entirely. The US release is cut and MPAA Unrated for: US 2011 Comedy Central RA Blu-ray via UK Amazon and at US Amazon US 2011 Comedy Central R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon The controversial 2 part episode titled 200 and 201 have at least been included, but censored as per the latest TV version. Originally the religious figure of Mohammed was depicted as a teddy bear when shown in episode 200. After kicking off a bit of a fuss, in the second part, 201, all shots of the character were obscured by a black silhouette marked CENSORED. Every mention of Mohammed was also bleeped out. The two part episode in question features a typically convoluted plotline in which Tom Cruise (previously pilloried as gay and for being a scientologist) rounds up 200 other celebrities who have been targets of the show’s satire in order to launch a class-action defamation suit against the town of South Park. Cruise also wrangles Muhammad into his scheme, secretly motivated by a desire to harness the prophet’s goo, which grants immunity to ridicule. Throughout, Muhammad is dressed in a bear suit, an ironic nod to the prohibition on showing images of Islam’s founding father. and the blasphemy accusation against a British teacher in Sudan who let her class of kids name a teddy bear Mohammed.