Howe Censorial…Elspeth Howe introduces Lords private Members bill to mandatorily block adult content unless adults specifically ask otherwise

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from christian.co.uk

The first legislative attempt to introduce an opt-in system for accessing adult internet content, has been introduced to the House of Lords. Of course private members bills have little chance of becoming law unless they capture a large consensus of support including the government. The Online Safety Private Members Bill was introduced by Baroness Elspeth Howe, who wants to require ISPs and mobile phone companies to block adult content, unless an adult user specifically asks for it. And the bill has predictably won the backing of the Christian  campaign group CARE, who claim it is important that the government look at providing a safe online environment for web savvy children. The Private Members Bill is calling for ISPs and mobile phone operators to provide a service that allows adult customers to make decisions about what sort of content they want blocking on their home broadband or their children’s mobile phones. Howe’s Bill is based on MP Claire Perry’s campiagn. The government said at the time that they are in favour of the proposals put forward, but would like the industry to self-regulate and bring about these changes without amending primary legislation. Last year the industry made the pledge to bring forward self-regulatory measures, but did not go as far as endorsing the requirement to have an opt-in to access pornography through a filter at network level. Howe said: Historically, most internet content has escaped regulation. A laudable industry-wide effort in the UK resulted in the Clean Feed system that blocks illegal child abuse imagery, but there has always been a reluctance to block, or limit access to, other forms of adult material due to the international nature of internet content.

Expensive Red Tape…ATVOD marginally reduces censorship fees

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from atvod.co.uk

Fees reduced by 3.58% across the board and banded fee structure retained for second year after public consultation backs ATVOD proposals Following a public consultation, The Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) , the regulator for video on demand services, has today announced its fee tariff for the year ending 31 March 2013. The new tariff, approved by Ofcom, retains the progressive banded structure first adopted for 2011-12 (which includes concessionary rates for micro-scale, small-scale and non-commercial service providers) and reduces rates by 3.58% in each band. The key outcomes are: Fees reduced by 3.58% across the board Concessionary rate of ฃ96 for non-commercial service providers Concessionary rates of ฃ145 and ฃ193 for commercial service providers with turnover below ฃ50,000 and ฃ100,000 respectively A three band standard tariff based on the turnover of the service provider, with rates set at ฃ771, ฃ4,990, and ฃ9,980 for the first service, and a maximum of ฃ771 per service for further services from the same provider A cap of ฃ25,000 on the total fees paid by any single provider Commenting on the decision, ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson said: The proposals we set out in the consultation took account of the work we had done in partnership with the industry through a joint working party and were endorsed by an overwhelming majority of respondents. We are very pleased to be able to cut fees across the board for 2012-13 and under the new tariff we expect that at least 50% of service providers will pay no more than ฃ771 and the smallest providers will pay ฃ193 or less. At the other end of the scale, companies operating large numbers of services will pay just ฃ771 for each extra service and will not pay more than ฃ25,000 however many services they provide. Meanwhile it has been reported that ATVOD are getting heavy in trying to extract previous years fees from unappreciative VOD providers, and are threatening to issuing winding up orders.

Just a Hitch…According to the ASA, nothing to get all worked up about

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A poster for Todd Insurance Broker featured a woman walking through an office, away from the camera. One side of the woman’s dress was tucked into her underwear. Text next to the image stated What are the odds? Further text stated Life’s full of little surprises. Make sure you’re covered for Home, Car, Travel and Business Insurance. A complainant challenged whether the ad was: offensive because it degraded and objectified women; and irresponsible because it could be seen by children. W Todd and Son Ltd did not believe that the poster was offensive or irresponsible. They said the poster was created by a female designer as part of a structured campaign that used the line, What are the odds? accompanied by an image of a recognisable mishap. They said the campaign was intended to be quirky and fun and took a light-hearted approach to thinking about insurance. They added that there was a male version of the poster planned for later in the campaign. ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld The ASA noted the complainant’s objections to the ad. We noted that the image in the ad showed the women’s dress tucked into her underwear and that her underwear, bottom and legs were visible. However, we did not consider that the image was sexually explicit. Neither did we consider the image, or the accompanying text, sexually suggestive. We considered that the image and the text What are the odds? was a play on a recognisable and embarrassing situation, but we did not consider that the approach used in the poster degraded women or was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We considered that the ad was a light-hearted approach to thinking about the chances of little surprises happening in life. Because we did not consider the poster sexually explicit or suggestive, or degrading to women, we considered that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. We also considered that it was suitable to be shown on a poster site that could be seen by children. For these reasons we concluded that the poster had not breached the Code. We investigated the poster under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

Pink Flamingos…The BBFC agreed to pass John Water’s gross comedy at 18 uncut in 2008, but unfortunately the release was cancelled

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to goatboy From BBFC’s excellent case studies from sbbfc.co.uk See further details at Melon Farmers Video Hits: Pink Flamingos See trailer from youtube.com

Pink Flamingos is a 1972 US crime comedy by John Waters. With Divine, David Lochary and Mary Vivian Pearce. See IMDb The BBFC agreed to an uncut 18 rated DVD release in 2008 but the release was cancelled. The BBFC addressed the 3 remaining cuts: Probably the most difficult scene was the one featuring a man assaulting a woman with live chickens. However, a careful viewing of the scene suggested that the handling of the chickens, although rough, was no stronger than other scenes of animals being manhandled that had been passed in other films. Furthermore, although the chickens were killed, the killing was quick and clean and therefore not in breach of BBFC policy on animal cruelty. The scene showing a man masturbating and injecting semen into a woman’s vagina was grotesque and repulsive, rather than erotic. Although the Board had previously expressed concerns about the non-consensual nature of the scene, the datedness of the film and the lack of credibility of the scene, argued against intervention.  With regard to the sexual violence in the scene, the Board’s conclusion was that the scene was so over-the-top and so divorced from reality, that the likely response was disgust, shock and horror, rather than arousal. The brief explicit fellatio could be justified by the wider context of the film, in that the whole purpose of the film was to shock, disgust and amuse (in a blackly comic fashion), rather than to arouse, and the explicitness of the image was important in creating the film’s effect. Previous Versions Released uncut for the pre-cert video: UK 1981 Palace VHS After a long delay, out of fear of a BBFC rejection, the video was eventually passed 18 after 3:04s of BBFC cuts for: UK 1990 Castle VHS The cuts, justified on grounds of sexual violence, degradation, animal cruelty, and obscenity, were: Cuts were made to remove sight of chickens being roughly handled and killed during a bizarre sexual assault on a woman. [The chicken is crushed between the copulating lovers]. Cuts were made to reduce a scene in which Channing the butler masturbates over a captive woman and injects semen into her vagina with a syringe Cuts were made to reduce a scene in which a man flexes his anus in close up, making it look as if the anus is singing. Cuts were made to remove all sight of Babs fellating her son in explicit detail Cuts were made to remove sight of Babs eating real dog excrement. The elastic singing anus cuts were restored for: UK 1997 cinema release Then the excrement eating cuts were additionally restored for: UK 1999 EIV VHS

Advert Censors of Little Stature…Advert with ‘Midgets’ Causes the Widespread Offence of One Person

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

Claims on Bar Fusion’s Facebook page, for a Christmas event at a bar, viewed on 9 December 2011, featured text which stated CHRISTMAS EVE WITH MIDGETS! FOR THE 1ST TIME IN TUNBRIDGE WELLS THIS CHRISTMAS EVE PARTY WITH OUR VERY OWN XMAS MIDGETS that’s right MIDGETS!!!!!!!!! ENTRY JUST ฃ5 ALL NIGHT. Beneath this text was an image which included the text To you & friends, from Santa’s club. December 24th. XMAS EVE With Our Xmas Midgets. A complainant objected that: the ad, and in particular the use of the word midgets, was offensive to short statured people; and the ad was irresponsible, because it reinforced negative attitudes towards short statured people. Bar Fusion said it was never their intention to cause offence and with hindsight they felt they must apologise for doing so. They said the night and artists were booked by an outside promoter who used the term. They therefore believed it was acceptable to use the term and that it would not cause offence. They said once it become apparent that the ad had caused offence, they removed the ad. ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld The ASA acknowledged that Bar Fusion did not intend to use the ad in future. However, we noted the ad stated CHRISTMAS EVE PARTY WITH OUR VERY OWN XMAS MIDGETS that’s right MIDGETS!!!!!!!!! and considered the ad portrayed the presence of individuals of short stature as an attraction and source of entertainment. We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence. We also considered the ad promoted negative attitudes towards individuals of short stature and was therefore irresponsible. On that basis, we concluded that the ad breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Bar Fusion to ensure that ads were prepared with a sense of social responsibility and did not cause serious or widespread offence in future.

Lost Souls at the BBFC…Robin Cooke talks about 100 years of film censorship at the BBFC

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbc.co.uk

As the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) celebrates its 100th year, its director David Cooke reflects on some of the films that have challenged the censor over the decades. One of the best examples is 1932′s Island of Lost Souls, the first non-silent screen adaptation of HG Wells’ Island of Dr Moreau, starring Charles Laughton and Bela Lugosi. Scene from Island of Lost Souls Island of Lost Souls was first rejected by the British censor in the 1930s Originally rejected in 1933 – and again in 1957 – the film was eventually classified with an X certificate with cuts in 1958. In 1996 these cuts were restored and the film gained a 12 certificate. In 2011, it was resubmitted for a new DVD/Blu-ray release and was passed as a PG – making it viewable by children, though it carries the warning: Contains mild violence and scary scenes. When we had to classify it again last year, we went for PG on the basis of the comparison with the Doctor Whos and the Harry Potters, explains BBFC director David Cooke.

Nobs and Nutters…Flying Scotsman strip pub under threat in King’s Cross

Read more UK Sex Sells News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from islingtontribune.com Photo by Ian Alexander Martin

Four strip pubs and clubs in Kings Cross and Old Street are under threat from Islington Council.Councillor Paul Convery had written a long letter opposing the application by The Flying Scotsman, in Caledonian Road, to renew its sex entertainment licence, arguing it would be detrimental to the regeneration of the area and reinforce the perception that King’s Cross was an area to find drugs and sex. He added that he had been contacted by Muslim and Christian constituents, who found the sex club abhorrent to their faith. But he told the Tribune he was going to withdraw the objection after being assured by the owners that they intended to have sex entertainment for only another year or two before turning the bar into a gastro-type pub. There’s not a lot of future in these types of geezer pubs with nude dancing and fizzy beer, he spouted. Islington’s Town Hall’s policy is to ban sex clubs altogether. Several objections to the Platinum Bar, in Paul Street, Bunhill, have been lodged by residents, citing the usual bollox about nearby schools. The Horns, in Old Street, has attracted opposition from nearby businesses. A financial company has claimed its women employees felt intimidated when walking past the club late at night. For Your Eyes Only, in City Road, is also seeking to have its licence renewed, although no objections have been lodged.

Internet Companies Asked to Pro-actively Censor Social Media…Government committee seems to envy Chinese censorship of the press and internet

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from parliament.uk

In a report published on 27th March 2012, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions says Parliament should not introduce any new privacy statute. It concludes that in weighing the competing rights to privacy and freedom of expression, each case must be judged on its own merits. The bar for limiting freedom of expression must be set high, but the Committee says that the courts are now striking a better balance in dealing with applications for privacy injunctions. It rejects criticism that privacy law has been judge-made, noting that it evolved from the Human Rights Act. The Committee says the most important step towards improving protection of privacy is to provide for enhanced censorship of the media. The Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence to be truly effective. Substantial changes to press regulation are needed to ensure that it encompasses all major news publishers including, in time, major bloggers. The reformed media censor should: Have access to a wider range of sanctions, including the power to fine; be cost-free to complainants be able to determine the size and location of a published apology, and the date of publication play a greater role in arbitrating and mediating privacy disputes The body dealing with complaints should include representatives who have experience of working in the print media, but should not include any full-time employees of news publishers or individuals who have a demonstrable conflict of interest. To make self-regulation work, all publishers must sign up to the new regulator. One possible mechanism the Committee suggests is for advertisers to agree to advertise only in publications that are members of the press regulator and subscribe to its rules. A standing commission comprising members of both Houses of Parliament should be established to scrutinise industry-led press reforms and to report on them to Parliament. If the industry fails to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight. This could involve giving Ofcom or another body overall statutory responsibility for press regulation, the day-to-day running of which it could then devolve to a self-regulatory body. The Committee says that major internet corporations should take active steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. In addition, the Attorney General should be more willing to bring actions for civil contempt of court in respect of injunctions being breached online. It also concludes that parliamentarians should ensure that material subject to an injunction is only revealed in Parliament when there is good reason to do so. Gratuitous or repeated revelation of such information could lead to new parliamentary rules to prevent it. The media must be legally protected when reporting Parliament, and so qualified privilege should apply to the reporting of all proceedings in Parliament.

Blocking the Hidden Areas of the Internet…IWF publish their Annual Report for 2011

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from iwf.org.uk See 2011 Annual Report [pdf] from iwf.org.uk

The IWF press release leads on the new concept that child abuse images available on the internet are being hidden in secret portions of seemingly legitimate web sites. The IWF explains the issue: Criminals are disguising websites to appear as if they host only legal content. However, if an internet user follows a predetermined digital path which leads them to the website, they will see images and videos of children being sexually abused. There are several reasons why this method is used. Firstly, it masks the criminal website from those who have not followed the correct digital path. Secondly, it means that a commercial child sexual abuse business may be able to acquire legitimate business services if the website appears to host legal content when accessed directly — essentially tricking companies into providing their services for what is actually a criminal enterprise. These disguised websites have not yet been encountered on UK servers but the IWF is working with its Members — the online industry – and other Hotlines around the world to effectively tackle this trend. In general the report shows a very laudable near 100% focus on the blocking and taking down of child related material, and doing so speedily. A useful statistic from the IWF is the number of illegal domains detected. This has declined from a 2006 peak of 3077 domains down to 1595 in 2011. (although this is an increase from 1351 in 2010). Thankfully this seems a pretty low figure for a worldwide statistic. Presumably most of these have subsequently been taken down too. On the subject of illegal adult material, the IWF received 2779 reports. Only 2 reports were about material hosted in the UK and therefore actionable by the IWF. One of these cases ended up in material being taken down, the other had already been removed prior to action. Most of the other reports involved material hosted abroad. The IWF do not take any action in this case (presumably because the material is probably legal where it is hosted). There is no comment about whether the recent UK obscenity acquittal of fisting and urolagnia material has had any impact on the IWF definition of illegal adult material.

Ofcom Announce a Performance Review of ATVOD…An aborted ludicrous flat rate fee structure, rules that suffocate the nascent adult VOD industry, expensive fees just to adjudicate on a handful of complaints. ATVOD will pass with flying colours

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Christopher Wollard, group director of Ofcom, has written to ATVOD: Two years ago, Ofcom designated ATVOD (the Authority for Television on Demand) as co-regulator of editorial content included in on-demand programme services (‘ODPS’). Paragraph 13 of the Designation says that: The Designation shall be subject to a formal review by Ofcom at the expiry of two years from the date of this Designation taking effect [i.e. 18 March 2012]. We propose to take the opportunity of the formal review of the Designation to take a broader look at how co-regulation is working. To this end, the terms of the review, which have been agreed by Ofcom’s Content Board, are to: (a) assess whether Ofcom’s tests for co-regulation are still being met, and that ATVOD remains an appropriate regulatory authority (b) consider how ATVOD is discharging the designated functions and whether it is meeting the obligations and conditions (c) identify any issues arising from the co-regulation of ODPS that would merit further consideration (d) consider whether to continue the designation, and if so, whether there are any aspects of the designation that may require amendment Ofcom are keen to hear from stakeholders, particularly VOD providers. Contributions are invited up until 21st May 2012. Ofcom expect to announce the results of the review in summer 2012.