Researching Easy Offence…ASA claims that the public is as easily offended as it is

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from asa.org.uk See Public Perceptions report [pdf] from asa.org.uk

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published the findings of research, conducted on its behalf by Ipsos MORI, into the public’s views on what is harmful and offensive in UK advertising. Specific rules in the Advertising Codes require the ASA to make judgements based on prevailing standards in society. The qualitative and quantitative research undertaken with the general public, parents, and children will help inform our decision making on matters relating to harm and offence. Encouragingly, the findings indicate that the ASA is broadly getting it right when it comes to judging where the line should be drawn in terms of inappropriate or harmful ads. However, the research also reveals some unexpected findings, which indicate some public concern about hard-hitting charity and public services ads. Specifically, most children in the qualitative research spontaneously mentioned charity and public service ads as those that had upset or bothered them or younger siblings recently. Some felt upset by the ads themselves, while others were worried because they wanted to help the cause but were unable to do so. Those ads were also a particular concern for parents. When it came to harm and offence more generally, other areas of concern spontaneously mentioned by participants were: sexual content and nudity, body image, violent content and gender stereotypes. In summary, the research reveals that: Overall, participants’ views of ads that had been the subject of complaints were broadly in line with the decisions taken by the ASA 16% said they had been personally offended by an ad or ads in the last twelve months, slightly lower than the 19% who had been offended when similar ASA research was conducted in 2002 Participants felt that the wider media showed stronger harmful and offensive content than advertising Protecting children from potential harm was a key priority for both parents and non-parents alike, rather than just a concern for parents 30% of children aged 11-16 surveyed said they had been bothered by an ad in the last 12 months. Sexual, violent and scary content were their main reasons. In more detail, the research reveals that: Charity and public service ads. Some participants argued that those ads can go too far, using distressing content to make people feel upset or guilty in a way that they considered inappropriate. Some parents felt that some charity ads were targeting their children directly, which then put pressure on them to donate money. Others felt those ads should have more scope to shock because of their worthwhile aims Portrayal of body image. Despite widespread spontaneous concerns about the portrayal of unrealistic body image – seen as both offensive and harmful by many participants, particularly women – only a minority felt that specific examples of those ads should be banned. Instead, advertising generally was seen as contributing to a broader culture where women — and particularly girls — can be made to feel bad about themselves Sexual content and nudity. A few participants had concerns about sexual content and nudity in advertising, particularly where they could see no link between sex and the product being advertised. However, many were not worried by the current level of sexual content and nudity in advertising, describing it as relatively inoffensive compared to other types of media Ads for sex shops and lap dancing clubs. Those were not a spontaneous concern for participants. Most did not find the examples they were shown personally offensive, but views were more divided about whether or not they were harmful to children Ads that depict gender stereotypes. Those were also mentioned spontaneously, with concerns about women being objectified and men being portrayed as stupid or engaging in juvenile behaviour Violent and scary content. Few adults reported having been offended by that in advertising recently. Concerns were more focused on ads for violent films and computer games and their potentially harmful impact on children and young men. Adult participants mentioned public service ads that featured violence or peril and whether they should be part of pre-watershed programming. Chairman of the ASA, Lord Smith says: This research is invaluable in giving us the opportunity to listen to what the public thinks on matters of harm and offence in ads. While it is reassuring that we generally seem to be getting things right, we cannot ignore the real concerns that have been raised, particularly around children. We will now reflect on the findings, for example making sure we consider the perspectives of children even more carefully in the future.

Few Relevant Complaints But Plenty of Wrangling about the Rules…ATVOD monthly complaints bulletin

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article [pdf] from  atvod.co.uk

In July 2012 ATVOD received 41 new complaints. Of these: 23 complaints were referred to the service provider in the first instance 17 were deemed to be out of remit after an initial assessment 1 concerns a service which is not notified to ATVOD and which is now the subject of a scope investigation. Meanwhile ATVOD ‘determined’ that TV On Demand on the Hutchison 3G UK mobile platform was liable to ATVOD censorship, but the Country Channel on YouTube was let off the hook. ATVOD also noted that MSN Video Player had opted out of ATVOD censorship after ending its supposedly TV-like service.

Check Mate…BBFC hand over games censorship to the VSC today

Read more VSC and PEGI Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  news from  bbfc.co.uk See also article from  bbc.com

From 30 July and with a few limited exceptions, the responsibility for classifying video games falls to the Video Standards Council, applying the PEGI system. The BBFC will continue to classify all games featuring strong pornographic (R18 level) content and ancillary games attached to a wider, primarily linear submission. The BBFC will also examine and offer a determination on certain linear content in video games. This determination will help the Video Standards Council in reaching an overall classification for the video game. The BBFC will offer a determination for linear content which does not contribute to the narrative drive of the game, whether this footage is live action or computer generated; embedded in the game or simply contained on the game disc. Examples of such linear content include the TV material created for the GTA series; video rewards for completing certain tasks or levels within the game; or other video content which does not contribute to the narrative drive of the video game. The BBFC will continue to classify all non-game linear content on a game disc, such as trailers and featurettes.

Extreme Prosecution…Anal fisting in an email attachment up for an extreme porn jury trial

Read more Extreme Pornography News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk

Today the Crown Prosecution Service will attempt to persuade a jury that images of anal fisting should be classified as extreme pornography with the risk to the defendant of three years in custody, inclusion on the sex offenders’ register and damage to his personal and professional standing. All for a type of image which is commonly viewed, of an activity which is itself is legal to perform and is even discussed in the book Fifty Shades of Grey. Nonetheless the defendant, Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting islikely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus . The Defendant — Simon Walsh Simon, who is represented by my firm (Hodge Jones & Allen) has given his express permission for this information to be published. Before being arrested and charged with these offences, Simon was a successful professional and politician in the City who, amongst other things, prosecuted police officers accused of disciplinary offences. After being charged, Simon lost both professional and political positions, despite the fact that no pornography was found on any of his work computers. In fact, no pornography was found on Simon’s home computers either. Instead, the police had to interrogate Simon’s personal email account (server) in order to discover a few images they deemed questionable. This included an image of a man wearing a gas mask. Their expert stated that this was likely to cause serious harm, even death by asphyxiation: despite being a piece of equipment designed to assist breathing. This charge was eventually dropped. Unfortunately, by performing the interrogation of Simon’s email account in the fashion they did, the police contaminated the only source of evidence; making it impossible to identify whether images attached to emails had in fact been opened and viewed. …Read the full article Follow trial on Twitter using #porntrial

Nearly Lost a Good Precedent…CPS were considering conceding the twitter joke trial

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to pbr See  article from  guardian.co.uk

The director of public prosecutions (DPP) stopped his staff dropping the case against Paul Chambers, author of the Twitter joke about blowing up Robin Hood airport in South Yorkshire, it has been claimed. Crown Prosecution Service lawyers had been prepared to back away from one of the most controversial cases in years, telling Chambers that they no longer saw a public interest in opposing his appeal against conviction. The CPS even sent Chambers and his solicitor, free-speech campaigner David Allen Green, papers stating that it now agreed that the case should end. However, at the last minute the DPP, former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, overruled his subordinates, it is alleged. Friends of Chambers said Starmer was trying to save face by refusing to admit he was in the wrong. Louise Mensch, Chambers’s MP, has called on the Commons home affairs or justice committees to investigate the DPP’s behaviour. The CPS confirmed that it spent ฃ 18,000 fighting Chambers. Taxpayers will also have to pay Chambers’s costs. However now that the appeal has been won, Starmer’s decision seems a good one. The Chief Justice’s judgement now sets a strong precedent that the police and CPS should not attempt such nasty bollox again.

The Only Menace is the CPS…Twitter Joke conviction quashed on appeal as the tweet lacked ‘menace’

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  ukhumanrightsblog.com See  judgement [pdf] from  judiciary.gov.uk See  article from  indexoncensorship.org

The famous Twitter joke conviction of Paul Chambers has been overturned on appeal, bringing welcome clarity to what is and what is not an offence of this type. On discovering a week before he was due to take a flight that the airport was closed due to adverse weather conditions, he tweeted: Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!! There was no evidence that this tweet alarmed any of his followers. It was picked up several days later by an employee of the airport, and it was referred to another member of staff, who took did not consider it a credible threat, but as a matter of procedure it was referred to the airport police. They took no action, other than to refer it to South Yorkshire Police. Chambers was arrested and charged, then later convicted of the offence of sending by a public electronic communication network a message of a menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003. He appealed from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court, and then to the Divisional Court (part of the High Court). The Court noted that in order to be menacing, as a matter of fact the people who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to do so, feel apprehension or fear. So, if those people instead, …brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character. In short, a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision, for the very simple reason that the message lacks menace. A CPS spokesman said: We accept the court’s reasoning and consider this to be the end of the matter. Speaking to Index on Censorship, Paul Chambers said he felt relieved and vindicated by the decision, adding that the case should never have got this far . Chambers’s solicitor David Allen Green said: This shameful prosecution should never have been brought.

Counting F-Words…BBFC reveal a century of rating, cutting and banning movies

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  guardian.co.uk

Kira Cochrane of the Guardian has a worthwhile luncheon interview with the BBFC. It was interesting to hear of an examiners training video that maybe prepares new employees for the worst: David Austin, head of policy, says an image from some Thai boxing footage the board uses in training has stayed with him. The bone in this man’s leg completely shatters into hundreds of pieces, he says, and you see him try to walk, and his leg just completely collapses. Another example that upset examiners was documentary footage of a man facing a firing squad. Half his face was blown away, but he remained alive, gasping for air. This scene was included in Terrorists, Killers & Other Wackos, a compilation of material too strong for news programmes, set to a hard rock soundtrack. It wasprobably calculated to be viewed by young blokes when they were just about to go to the pub, says Cooke, and the board refused to classify it, making it illegal to supply the film. The extensive explanation of the board’s ruling includes the comment that the footage has the potential to desensitise viewers, and perhaps even to incite some to harm others . But that same scene was allowed on another video — a serious documentary about capital punishment, which the board passed at 18, uncut.That just shows how the same image can be legitimate or not, depending on the context, says Austin. …Read the full article

Ratings Aren’t Forever…BBFC uprates Diamonds are Forever from PG to 12

Read more James Bond Films at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Gavin Salkeld See article from bbfc.co.uk

The BBFC are currently reviewing the complete collection of official James Bond Films set to be released as 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray box set called Bond 50. See UK 2012 MGM RB Blu-ray [Bond 50 Collection] at UK Amazon released on 24th September 2012. Another notable change to BBFC ratings is that Diamonds Are Forever has uprated from PG to 12 with the consumer advice: Contains moderate language, violence and threat Diamonds Are Forever: UK Censorship History 1971 Passed A (PG) after BBFC cuts for: UK 1971 cinema release The BBFC cinema cuts were: The fight in the lift between Peter Franks and Bond was reduced to remove blows and sound effects. Bond squirting the fire extinguisher into Frank’s face was reduced in length. Bond menacing Mr Kidd with a broken brandy bottle was trimmed. It’s so brief in the film, one wonders what was cut, but my guess is that the actual grabbing and breaking of the bottle was cut, leaving just the footage of Bond throwing the liquid onto Kidd’s arms. Perhaps what little focus there is on the weapon was deemed a more serious imitability issue back then. Footage of the ablaze Mr Kidd running across the deck screaming and climbing up onto the railing, as he throws himself overboard was removed, leaving just the shot of him hitting the water. When shown on TV, this scene is usually cut similarly. 1987-2008 Passed PG uncut after film cuts were restored for: UK 2008 MGM  R2 DVD at UK Amazon UK 2007 20th Century Fox R2 DVD UK 2006 MGM R2 DVD UK 2003 MGM R2 DVD UK 2003 MGM VHS UK 1992 Warner VHS UK 1987 Warner VHS 2012 Passed 12 uncut for moderate language, violence and threat for: UK 2012 MGM RB Blu-ray [Bond 50 Collection]

Censor Duty…ASA whinge at PG rated advert for Call of Duty game shown on daytime TV

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  asa.org.uk

A TV ad for the computer game Call of Duty: MW3 , opened with on-screen text stating AM3RICA , followed by computer-generated scenes of New York under military assault, with buildings exploding and catching fire, soldiers loading guns and a submarine firing rockets. On-screen text stated3NGLAND , followed by scenes of warfare in London, including armed men firing at a lorry until it crashed and a helicopter firing rockets. On-screen text then stated FRANC3 , followed by scenes of Paris under attack, featuring soldiers and vehicles firing weapons. On-screen text then stated G3RMANY , followed by scenes of tanks driving down the streets, soldiers abseiling down the side of a building, planes firing overhead and a burnt-out building toppling over. A voice-over stated,The world as you knew it is gone. How far will you go to bring it back? The ad featured further scenes of armed warfare and destruction, including soldiers firing weapons, military vehicles firing rockets at buildings and explosions. An end-frame statedCALL OF DUTY. MW3. 08.11.11. Pre-Order Now For XBox 360 and featured the logo for certificate 18. A sound-track featured throughout the ad as well as sound effects for weapons being fired, explosions and soldiers shouting. The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a timing restriction such that it should not be broadcast in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to persons below the age of 16 years. Issue Two viewers challenged whether the ad was inappropriate for broadcast during the day when children would be watching. One of the viewers reported that their children, aged between two and four, had been frightened by the ad. ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld The ASA understood that the ad had been cleared with a scheduling restriction that meant it should not be broadcast in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to persons below the age of 16 (an ex-kids restriction). We noted that the ad was broadcast at 2.30pm during a premier league football match and that audience index figures showed that a small proportion of viewers were children aged under 16. We also noted Activision’s comment that the ad had been given a Parental Guidance (PG) certificate by the BBFC for in-store use, which meant that it had been rated as being suitable for general viewing, although some scenes may not be suitable for young children. We noted the ad featured computer-generated scenes of warfare in various cities around the world. The ad contained scenes of extensive gunfire, explosions and destruction, and these scenes were accompanied by sound effects of weapons being fired, explosions and soldiers shouting. We also noted the ad featured music in the background which sounded like a low-pitched siren and which added to the dramatic nature of the scenes. We considered that the scenes of violence and destruction, together with the sound effects and music, could cause distress to some children who might see the ad. Although we noted that the ad was only shown during the football, we concluded that it was inappropriate for broadcast during the day when young children might be watching and the ex-kids restriction was insufficient. We considered a post 7.30pm restriction would have been more appropriate. The ad breached BCAP Code rules 5.1 (Harm and offence) and 32.3 (Scheduling). Action The ad must not be broadcast again before 7.30pm.

Britain’s Got a Talent for Prudery…Ofcom clears Beatrix Von Bourbon’s Burlesque act

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  Broadcast Bulletin [pdf] from  stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Britain’s Got Talent ITV1&2, 31 March 2012, 20:00 repeated at 13:00 and 19:00 Britain’s Got Talent: Live Semi-final ITV1&2, 9 May 2012, 19:30 repeated at 16:00 Britain’s Got Talent is a talent series, broadcast on ITV1, which aims to find an unknown star from the general public to perform at the annual Royal Variety Performance. The episode of Britain’s Got Talent broadcast on 31 March 2012 was pre-recorded and showed an early audition stage that took place in Blackpool. One of the performances in this programme was a burlesque act performed by a woman named Beatrix Von Bourbon. This item was shown at around 20:25. A total of 75 complainants alerted Ofcom to her act. In summary the complainants considered the performance was inappropriate for broadcast during a family show because it contained images and themes unsuitable for a child audience. Ofcom noted that the programme included: a brief introductory piece about Beatrix Von Bourbon in which she explained that she had a background in ballet and tap dance; her two minute burlesque act performed to the audio track Feeling Good by the band Muse, during which she removed her skirt, jacket and bra (underneath she wore nipple tassels and her breasts were masked with an on-screen graphic), leaving her wearing a corset, knickers, stockings and shoes. The live semi-final broadcast on 9 May 2012 starting at 19:30 also included a performance by Beatrix Von Bourbon. Ofcom noted that approximately one hour into this programme a brief introductory piece about Beatrix Von Bourbon was broadcast and her performance followed. It lasted approximately one and half minutes. She began by wearing a long sleeveless gown and gloves, both of which she then removed to reveal a pair of gold satin camisole knickers, shoes and a top that comprised a bra and large beaded necklace. While her back was turned to the audience, Beatrix Von Bourbon then removed this top and she concluded her act in this position. This shot of her was partially obscured by two assistants who held large ostrich feather fans. Prior to receiving feedback from the judges, she was handed a large, knee-length fur wrap to wear, which covered her torso and thighs. Ofcom considered Rule 1.3: Children must … be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. Ofcom Decision: Not in breach of Ofcom rules Ofcom is aware that some viewers may find the sexualised nature of burlesque performances potentially offensive. However we noted that the images of Ms Von Bourbon adopting mildly provocative positions and limited and partial nudity were fleeting, and the act itself was performed in the manner of a dance that required skill and training. As already pointed out Ofcom guidance states that:It is important to note that in pre-watershed content, Ofcom would not expect to see singers and dancers wearing clothing that does not adequately cover their bodies (in particular their breasts, genital area and buttocks). The performance included a very brief image of the performer’s partially obscured buttocks when she unzipped her skirt. We considered this image was on the margins of acceptability and remind the broadcaster to take particular note of Ofcom’s guidance cited above in future. The programme is part of a long running series on ITV1 and ITV2 that includes a variety of acts that appeal to wide range of viewers including children and adults. We noted that the programme was repeated after its original broadcast on both services at various times of the day before the 21:00 watershed during the following six day period. We also noted that the format and style of the series, including the types of acts included, were similar in nature to the previous series that have been broadcast over recent years. In our opinion this programme, and in particular this burlesque performance by Ms Von Bourbon, would therefore not have exceeded the likely expectations of the vast majority of the ITV1 and ITV2 audience – either when originally broadcast or when repeated. The performance and partial nudity was in Ofcom’s opinion appropriately limited and suitably brief in duration. We considered that while some forms of burlesque dancing would be considered inappropriate for a child audience, this performance was presented carefully by the broadcaster to take account of the pre- watershed audience and did not convey an overtly sexualised theme. We therefore concluded, on balance, that this performance was appropriately scheduled and the broadcaster complied with Rule 1.3.