Wrestling with the BBFC…Film director Ken Russell dies aged 84

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbc.co.uk See also article from sbbfc.co.uk

British film director Ken Russell, who was Oscar-nominated for his 1969 film Women In Love, has died at the age of 84. His son, Alex, said he died peacefully in his sleep in a hospital on Sunday. During his career, he became known for his controversial films including Women In Love, which featured Oliver Reed and Alan Bates wrestling nude. He also directed the infamous religious drama The Devils and The Who’s rock opera, Tommy, in 1975. Russell frequently crossed swords with the film censors at the BBFC who took issue with Billion Dollar Brain, Women in Love, The Devils, and Crimes of Passion. The Devils Perhaps a suitable Melon Farming tribute is a summary of Russell’s strength of character in pushing through his outrageous vision for The Devils. He was up against the BBFC, his own distributors and the British establishment. The Devils was first seen by the BBFC in an unfinished rough cut on 27 January 1971. At around the same time, this rough cut was also shown to senior executives from Warner Brothers, the film’s distributor. Both the BBFC and Warners expressed strong reservations about the strong religious and sexual context of the film, which seemed likely to provoke significant controversy. Warners and the BBFC therefore drew up separate lists of the cuts they would require before the film could be distributed in the UK. Warners were content with their own plus the additional cuts requested by the BBFC and a full list of required changes was forwarded to the director. The cuts were intended to reduce: (i) the explicitness and duration of certain sexual elements, including an orgy of nuns (ii) elements of violence and gore during an interrogation scene and the final burning of the character played by Oliver Reed (iii) scenes that mixed sexual activity and religion in a potentially inflammatory fashion. A modified – but still technically unfinished – version of the film was seen again by the BBFC on 8 April 1971, incorporating many (but not all) of the cuts requested by both the BBFC and by Warners. Ken Russell had toned down or removed what had been regarded as the most difficult scenes, including the entire Rape of Christ sequence in which a group of nuns cavort on a crucifix, whilst hoping that the significant reductions he had already made would perhaps allow certain other shots to remain. The BBFC requested further reductions in four sequences. Russell responded by complying fully with three of the cuts but insisted that the fourth additional cut could not be made properly because it would create continuity problems. On 18 May 1971 the BBFC awarded an X certificate to the cut version of the film. Because of the scale of the changes made to the film (including the deletion of one entire scene) it is difficult to calculate accurately how much was removed from the film between January and May 1971. However, it is safe to say that several minutes were removed. The resultant version suffered cuts as follows: A scene showing nuns assaulting an effigy of the cross was deleted (approximately 30s) An enema scene loses some details The crushing of Grandier’s legs loses details. Grandier’s tongue torture loses details Shots of a priest being assaulted by nuns after the King’s visit are missing Jeanne masturbating with a chard bone was cut Whippings scenes throughout were removed A Timely Tribute to Ken Russell. The BFI re-release of his Masterpiece, The Devils See article from criterionforum.org After much arm-twisting the BFI has indeed persuaded Warner Bros to let them handle The Devils, and a packed two-disc lovingly-curated special edition will be out next March. I’ll get the bad news out of the way right now: as already spotted, it’s DVD only, and it’s the 1971 British theatrical cut, not the 2004 restoration. Since BFI DVD Publishing is demonstrably run by Blu-ray evangelists and has a policy of sourcing the longest available version of the films they put out, you probably don’t need to live at 221B Baker Street to work out the reasons for this. But that really does appear to be all the bad news. I’ve seen the full specs, and it looks like an absolute blinder of a release – and hopefully all will be revealed in a matter of days. UK 2012 BFI R2 DVD at UK Amazon for release on 19th march 2012

Australia Crawls Under a Stone…Human Centipede II banned after government appeals against the previous uncut R18+ certificate

Read more Australia Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Bob See article from blogs.crikey.com.au

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) has been been banned by the Australian Classification Review Board (ACRB). The review was the result of an appeal against the previously uncut R18+ certificate awarded by the Classification Board. The appeal was requested by Australia’s Justice Minister Brendan O’Connor, reportedly on the advice of the New South Wales Attorney General Greg Smith. The film has already opened at select cinemas a fortnight ago, including Melbourne’s Cinema Nova, which advertised the film with a prophetic see it before it’s banned motto. From the ACRB’s official press statement: A three member panel of the Classification Review Board has by unanimous decision determined that the film The Human Centipede II (full sequence) is classified RC (Refused Classification). In the Review Board’s opinion, The Human Centipede II (full sequence) could not be accommodated within the R 18+ classification as the level of depictions of violence in the film has an impact which is very high. In addition, the film must be refused classification because it contains gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact and cruelty which has a high impact. Films classified RC cannot be sold, hired, or advertised in Australia.

More Legendary…The Director’s Cut of Legend set for UK release

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbfc.co.uk

Legend is a 1985 US/UK fantasy by Ridley Scott with Tom Cruise and Mia Sara. See IMDb The Director’s Cut was passed PG uncut for: UK 2012 20th Century Fox Online UK 2012 20th Century Fox Blu-ray at UK Amazon The details of the UK haven’t been released yet, but hopefully the UK Blu-ray will follow the 2011 US Blu-ray which features both the Director’s Cut and the Theatrical Version. The additional material is non-contentious See pictorial version details from movie-censorship.com

007 Censor Cuts…Rough Treatment. How film censors got their hooks into GoldenEye

Read more James Bond Films at MelonFarmers.co.uk

GoldenEye came before the BBFC in 1995, who viewed the film in a rough cut form. This is a common practice with filmmakers who are seeking a certain rating. They can submit their film (in an unfinished state) to the Board informally, who will suggest cuts to the film so that the desired rating is more likely to be achieved when the final, formal submission is made. Like Licence to Kill before it, GoldenEye went down this route. These are the cuts originally made in 1995 to the rough cut of the film. See article GoldenEye at the BBFC

Sorry Kids, We Only Care About Supposed Sexualisation…ASA prefer living in their own fairyland about ‘widespread distress’ and don’t recognise real ‘widespread distress’ when they see it

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk See video from youtube.com

The advertising censors at the ASA have received 456 complaints from parents complaining that retailer Littlewood’s festive TV campaign is upsetting children by revealing that Father Christmas doesn’t exist. The ad features young children performing in a school Christmas play who sing about who has bought their presents. They join in a chorus singing that it is their mothers who have done all the shopping. Most of the complainants said that they wanted the ad to be rescheduled to a later hour when children are in bed. Some parents went as far as to say that their children were distressed to find out that Father Christmas does not provide presents. However the ASA decided: After careful consideration ASA council has decided that, as the ad did not make reference to Father Christmas or suggest Father Christmas did not exist, it was unlikely to cause distress to children and therefore we won’t be launching an investigation. Yes but if parents had told their kiddies that presents under the christmas tree were left by Santa then it gives the game away nevertheless.

Full Control…Mary Whitehouse would have been proud of ASA’s ludicrous claims about Lucy Pinder Lynx adverts

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk See also Feminist campaigners have been possessed by the spirit of Mary Whitehouse  from blogs.telegraph.co.uk by Brendan O’Neill

Five internet display ads for Lynx Dry Full Control deodorant. The first four ads were video ads viewed on Yahoo, Hotmail, Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak in June and July 2011. The fifth ad was a static display ad on Spotify viewed in July 2011. a. The first ad showed Lucy Pinder carrying out various activities including getting dressed, washing a car and eating an ice lolly. In each scene she was wearing different outfits all of which revealed her cleavage. On-screen text stated Can she make you lose control? Put premature perspiration to the test. Text at the end invited viewers to Play with Lucy and gave the web address www.lynxeffect.com. b. The second ad showed Lucy Pinder carrying out various activities such as stripping wallpaper, jogging, applying lip gloss, eating whipped cream off her finger and playing with a light sabre. On-screen text stated What will she do to make you lose control?. At the end of the ad Lucy Pinder beckoned to the viewer and on-screen text stated Lucy Pinder [blank]ing makes me prematurely perspire. c. Ad (c) was the same as ad (b) above but featured different on-screen text that stated Can she make you lose control? and Put premature perspiration to the test. d. The fourth ad featured various close ups of Lucy Pinder’s cleavage. On-screen text at the end of the ad invited viewers to Play with Lucy and gave the website address www.lynxeffect.com. e. The Spotify ad featured an image of Lucy Pinder wearing underwear and bending over an oven door. Text stated Can she make you lose control?. The ad then reduced to a sidebar image of Lucy Pinder standing outdoors under a washing line in her underwear and a short shirt. The ad invited viewers to click through to watch a video. Issue Ten complainants challenged whether ads (a), (b), (c) and (d): 1. were offensive, because they featured sexually provocative content and were degrading to women; and 2. were irresponsible, because they were inappropriately located on sites that could be seen by children, and could cause harm to children. Six complainants challenged whether ad (e): 3. was offensive, because it featured sexually provocative content and was degrading to women; and 4. was irresponsible, because it was inappropriately located on Spotify where it could be seen by children, and could cause harm to children. Unilever said their ads for Lynx often provoked diverse reactions and opinions, but that it was not their intention to cause harm or offence. Whilst they were confident that the ads complied with the CAP Code, they sincerely regretted any offence caused. ASA Assessment 1. Upheld The ASA noted that Unilever intended the ads to be a tongue-in-cheek take on the mating game. However, we considered that the various activities that Ms Pinder carried out were presented in a sexually provocative way, and that alongside the focus on Ms Pinder’s cleavage, especially in ad (d), the ads were likely to be seen as gratuitous and to objectify women. We considered that was emphasised by the text Can she make you lose control? in ads (a) and (c), What will she do to make you lose control? in ad (b), Lucy Pinder [blank]ing makes me prematurely perspire in ad (b), and the invitation to Play with Lucy in ads (a) and (d), which we considered would also be seen as degrading to women. We therefore concluded that the ads were likely to cause serious and widespread offence. On this point, ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence). 2. Upheld We noted that Yahoo had targeted the ads to men over the age of 18 years, and that 97% of users of their news channel, where the ad appeared in addition to appearing across their UK website, were over 18. We also noted that Hotmail had targeted the ads to males between the ages of 16 and 25, and that 94% of users of the Hotmail site were over 15 and 91% were over 18 years of age. Notwithstanding our concern in point 1 above that the ads were likely to cause offence, we noted that for the purposes of the CAP Code a child was someone under the age of 16 and considered that the ad was unlikely to cause harm to those aged 16 or over. We also considered that, because the ad was unlikely to be seen by those under the age of 18 on the Yahoo and Hotmail sites, it was not irresponsible on those grounds for the ads to be placed on those websites. However, we noted that we had not seen evidence that showed what proportion of the users of the Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak websites were over 16 years of age. We understood that the Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak websites were not protected through age verification or other similar targeting, and therefore that the ads could be viewed by a wide audience. For the reasons given in point 1 above, we considered that the ads were unsuitable to be seen by children and could cause them harm, and that Unilever had not taken adequate steps in relation to those websites to ensure they were appropriately targeted. We therefore concluded that the ads were irresponsible. On this point, ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Children). 3. Upheld We considered that the image of Lucy Pinder leaning over the oven door in her underwear was provocative. Whilst we noted that the second image of Ms Pinder wearing her underwear and a short shirt was less suggestive, we considered that, alongside the text Can she make you lose control?, the ad was likely to be seen as objectifying women and degrading to them. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some people. On this point, ad (e) breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence). 4. Not upheld We noted Unilever’s assertion that the ad was targeted to Spotify users over the age of 16, and understood that, on registering, Spotify users were asked to give their age and confirm whether they were over 12 years of age and had parental consent, or over 18 years of age. Notwithstanding our concern in point 3 above that the ad was likely to cause serious offence, we considered that the ad was unlikely to cause harm to those aged 16 or over. We also considered that, because the ad was unlikely to be seen by children under the age of 16, it was not irresponsible on those grounds. On this point, we investigated ad (e) under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Children) but did not find it in breach.

Meshnet…Internet users consider internet alternatives that are less open to censorship

Read more Internet Website News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from forbes.com See also Meshnet from reddit.com

Users of the social news and community site Reddit don’t like the way the US government seems to be muscling in on the Internet. So they plan to build a new one. Redditors have flocked over the last week to a new subgroup on Reddit.com they’re calling the Darknet Plan or Meshnet with the aim of building a mesh-based version of the Internet that wouldn’t be subject to the control of any corporation or government, with a focus on anonymity, peer-to-peer architecture and strong resistance to censorship. In the last few days, about 10,000 users have joined the group, and about 200,000 have visited, according to Chris Bresee, the 17-year old Vermonter who founded the project. He attributes the sudden spike in interest to the Stop Online Piracy Act and the awareness of the possibilities of government censorship that the bill has created: If passed in its current form, SOPA would use Domain Name System filtering to effectively disappear infringing sites from the Internet. Mesh networks are designed to allow users to connect to one another directly instead of to a centralized Internet service provider. Bresee says Meshnet would start by aiming to create local clusters of users and connect them with the traditional Internet. We would piggyback on the current infrastructure to connect these islands of meshes, he says. But as the mesh networks grow, less and less dependence on the ISPs would be needed.

Tots Reading Tatler Warned Off Rail Tracks…The ever more ludicrous ASA bans advert for unsafe photo shoot location

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

An ad in the September 2011 edition of Tatler Magazine for the fashion retailer, Miu Miu, featured the young model/actress Hailee Steinfeld. She was sitting on railway tracks and looked as if she was upset and may have been crying. A complainant, who believed the ad showed someone who had been crying, objected that it was irresponsible because it was suggestive of youth suicide, especially because the ad could be seen by impressionable young people. The ASA challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it showed a child in an unsafe location. Prada Retail UK Ltd said the ad was part of a serious, high-fashion campaign aimed at adult women. It was placed only in adult, high-fashion magazines such as Tatler. Prada stated that the ad was not created to give this impression to anyone, or with the intent of depicting a child in an unsafe location. The campaign was photographed by well-known photographer and film maker, Bruce Weber, and featured the well-known American actress, Hailee Steinfeld who was nominated for an Oscar and BAFTA this year for her performance in the film True Grit. The photographs were shots of the actress in between takes of the film, while she was waiting for the next scene to begin. 1. Prada said Hailee Steinfeld was rubbing her eye with her finger, indicating that it was itchy or had something in it. This was one of the between takes shots in the campaign. Hailee Steinfeld was waiting for the next take of the film to start and, therefore, was not posing for the camera and was relaxed. She was acting in an unconscious manner. Prada stated this was natural for a person to do when they were not being watched. They stated that Hailee Steinfeld was not crying, nor had she been asked to cry or look upset. The ad pictured her with a wistful and thoughtful face. 2. Prada said the ad was photographed on an abandoned railway track in a foreign country. Hailee Steinfeld was sitting on the edge of the train track as if she was resting between takes of the movie on a hot day. They said the viewpoint of the ad extended along the railway track and it was clear that there was no train in sight. Prada said that she could have easily moved from where she was sitting because she was not restrained in any way. Because the ad was photographed on a redundant railway track in the ad, neither Hailee Steinfeld nor anyone else, was not placed in danger. ASA Decision 1. Not Upheld We did not consider that Hailee Steinfeld was shown looking in distress or that she had been crying. We noted that the ad had been carefully targeted and placed in a sophisticated, high fashion magazine with a predominantly adult readership and that the Miu Miu brand was not aimed at teenagers or young children. Because the ad was placed in a magazine with a mainly adult readership and it showed a stylised image of Hailee Steinfeld dressed in sophisticated 1940s style clothing we considered that readers of the magazine would understand that the image was sufficiently removed from reality and that it represented a staged fashion shoot. In that context, we therefore concluded that the ad was prepared with a due sense of responsibility and would not be suggestive of youth suicide to impressionable young people. On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.5 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach. 2. Upheld We noted Prada’s comments that the photo was shot on an abandoned railway track and that Hailee Steinfeld was not in any way constrained to that position, and that the viewpoint of the ad extended along the railway track where there was clearly no train in sight. We noted that she could have easily moved from where she was sitting, that she was not running along the track, and she was not playing on it. We acknowledged that the ad was part of a serious, high fashion campaign aimed at adult women; and that it was placed only in adult, high fashion magazines such as Tatler, which was not aimed or addressed at children. Nevertheless, because the ad showed Hailee Steinfeld, who was 14 years of age only when the photo was shot, in a potentially hazardous situation sitting on a railway track, we concluded the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code in showing a child in a hazardous or dangerous situation. The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility), 4.5 (Harm and Offence) and 5.1.2 (children).

Human Rights Heroes…Liberty Awards

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from liberty-human-rights.org.uk

Human rights heroes from various walks of life were rewarded for their achievements at Liberty’s Human Rights Awards last night. Inspiring young people, artists and campaigners were honoured along with dedicated lawyers, journalists and politicians at the ceremony at the capital’s Southbank Centre. The event, which was hosted by comedian Marcus Brigstocke, was attended by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Attorney General Dominic Grieve and Baroness Hale, as well as senior figures from the worlds of law, media and the arts. Sir Patrick Stewart, Dame Vivienne Westwood and Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper were amongst those handing out the awards. And Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke and Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti presented the Norwegian Ambassador Kim Traavik with a special tribute to the people of Norway in honour of the victims of 22 July 2011 and the dignity and humanity of the country’s response. Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said: We are full of admiration and appreciation for the dedication and commitment to the protection of rights and freedoms shown by all our winners and nominees. It’s been an interesting year for human rights and the fight to defend the Human Rights Act, which has never been more vital, is far from over. But we’re acutely aware that we’re far from alone in that promotion of human dignity, equal treatment and fairness and Liberty is immensely proud to honour our candidates’ achievements. The Liberty Human Rights Awards 2011 winners and category nominees in full were: Human Rights Young Person of the Year: Cerie Bullivant — for his inspirational and courageous personal campaign against the unjust control order regime and proposed Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. The other nominees were Zin Derfoufi, Abigail Stepnitz and Chris Whitehead. Human Rights Arts Award, in association with the Southbank centre: Penny Woolcock, screenwriter and film director of On the Streets — for her compassion and commitment to those living and surviving on the margins. The other nominees were the Iceandfire Theatre Company and David R. Dow for Killing Time: One Man’s Race to Stop an Execution. Human Rights Lawyer of the Year: Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer — for his integrity and courage in the face of dissembling and denial of human rights abuses by British forces in Iraq. The other nominees were Fiona Murphy, of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, and Hugh Southey QC, of Tooks Chambers. Human Rights Close to Home Award: Janis Sharp — for her passionate and sustained campaign to protect her son, Gary McKinnon, from facing extradition to the USA. The other nominees were Janet Alder, Davies, Gore & Lomax LLP and Housing Justice. Independent Voice of the Year: Peter Oborne – for calling to account the most powerful in our country, especially in relation to the shameful history of complicity in torture during the War on Terror. The other nominees were Joe Plomin, Paul Kenyon & BBC Panorama and Tom Watson MP. Lifetime Achievement Award: John Hendy QC, from Old Square Chambers — in recognition of a career dedicated to defending and upholding the rights of workers and trade unionists in this country. Human Rights Long Walk Award: Private Eye – for keeping the powerful on their toes and the public informed and entertained — and Tony Bunyan & Statewatch — for dedication to openness, democracy and informed debate about European institutions, keeping us reliably informed and suitably engaged for the last 20 years.

The Lynx Effect…Addles the mind of advert censors and makes them see sexualisation wherever they look

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

12th November 2011. See article from asa.org.uk

A poster for Lynx shower gel, in July 2011, featured a picture of a young woman standing beneath an outdoor shower on a beach. She wore bikini bottoms and clasped an undone bikini top against her breasts. Text on the right of the ad above a large picture of a bottle of the product stated THE CLEANER YOU ARE THE DIRTIER YOU GET. Text at the bottom of the ad stated VISIT FACEBOOK.COM/LYNXEFFECT AND GET DIRTY THIS SUMMER. Issue The ASA received 113 complaints: 97 complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it was sexually suggestive, provocative, indecent, glamorised casual sex, and because it objectified and was demeaning to women; 71 complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it was inappropriate for public display, where it could be seen by children; and 12 complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it promoted promiscuity. Unilever said the poster made use of the cheeky and humorous tone commonly used in Lynx advertising but did not believe the content was inappropriate. The image selected included nothing overtly sexual, suggestive or provocative and was not indecent. They acknowledged that the woman’s bikini top was undone and that she was holding it to her chest but argued that that tied in with the light-hearted tone without the resulting image being materially more revealing than if it were not undone. The model was pictured on a beach, which linked to the TV ads, and she was not undressed to an extent that would be in any way unusual in that location. They had been careful to ensure that the model’s expression, while reflecting the light-hearted tone, was in no way unduly suggestive, provocative or indecent. They said the overall feel of the campaign, the poster and Lynx advertising over the years was cartoonish and believed that it was unlikely to be seen as objectifying or demeaning to women or to cause serious or widespread offence on that basis. Unilever said the strapline THE CLEANER YOU ARE THE DIRTIER YOU GET was intended as a playful innuendo and the key point stylistically was the use of the word DIRTIER in contrast to being cleaner as a result of using the shower gel. They said the strapline was not intended to convey any particular message about sex or sexual relationships in the real world and did not believe that it would be understood to do so. ASA Assessment The ASA previously considered two TV ads from the same campaign which featured a group of women in bikinis at a beach mimicking the behaviour of a man taking a shower, and which also featured the statement The cleaner you are, the dirtier you get in the voice-over and on screen. We had concluded that those ads did not warrant investigation. However, that decision was in part due to both ads having been given timing restrictions by Clearcast so that they could not be broadcast before 7.30pm and 9.30pm respectively and could not be shown during, or adjacent to, programmes likely to appeal strongly to children. Although we considered that those TV ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence we considered that the poster, an untargeted medium likely to be seen by a wide variety of audiences and age groups, needed to be considered on its own merits and outside the context of the wider campaign. 1.Upheld We noted that the poster featured a woman standing under a beach shower wearing bikini bottoms and holding a bikini top against her breasts. While we considered that the poster was not graphic or indecent we noted that the woman’s bikini top was undone and that the ad also included the statement THE CLEANER YOU ARE THE DIRTIER YOU GET. We considered that that statement, particularly placed next to a picture of a woman with an unfastened bikini top and reinforced by the statement GET DIRTY THIS SUMMER at the bottom of the poster, was clearly intended to imply that using the advertised product would lead to more uninhibited sexual behaviour. We therefore considered that the poster would be seen to make a link between purchasing the product and sex with women and in so doing would be seen to objectify women. We also considered that the combination of the image and the suggestive text, in a poster on public display, was likely to be considered offensive by many members of the public, particularly those who were accompanied by children. We concluded that the poster was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. On this point the poster breached CAP rules 4.1 (Harm and Offence). 2. Upheld We noted that efforts had been made by Clear Channel to limit the locations in which the poster was displayed. Nonetheless, we noted that some of the complainants reported that they had seen the poster near schools and on their way to school. For the reasons given in point 1 above, we considered that the image and the text were likely to be considered offensive and we were also concerned that a number of the complainants had had the ad pointed out to them by their young children or been asked by them to explain the meaning of the text. We considered that the suggestive nature of the image and the strong innuendo were not acceptable for public display where they might be seen by children and concluded that the poster was irresponsible on this point. On this point the poster breached CAP rule 1.3 (Social responsibility). 3. Not upheld We noted that 12 complainants were concerned that the image in the poster, and particularly the text were irresponsible because they encouraged promiscuity. We noted that many of those complainants had raised concerns about societal attitudes to casual sex, the prevalence of unwanted and underage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. While we took those concerns seriously, we noted that the poster did not feature a sex scene or refer to or suggest that unprotected sex or sex with multiple partners was desirable, or should be sought out. We concluded that the poster was not irresponsible on this point. On this point we investigated the poster under CAP rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.