Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

gucci advert banned video Still images that appeared at the end of a video for the fashion brand Guccio Gucci SpA, seen on http://www.thetimes.co.uk on 15 December 2015, featured several models dancing to a soundtrack. The final part of the ad featured several photos of individual models. Image (a) featured a woman leaning with her back to a wall and was wearing a long dress which covered her body from the neck down to her mid-calves including her arms. Image (b) featured another model who was sitting on a sofa. She was wearing a high necked jacket and a skirt which covered her down to her mid-thighs.

A complainant, who believed the featured models appeared unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.

Guccio Gucci SpA said that the ads were part of a video that portrayed a dance party and was aimed at an older, sophisticated audience. They noted that the target population of The Times, where the ad appeared, had an adult and mature readership. They said it was, to some extent, a subjective issue as to whether a model looked unhealthily thin. which they considered was not the case for either of the women identified by the complainant. They believed both models had slim builds. but were not depicted in a way that could be interpreted as unhealthily thin. For example, nowhere in the ads were any models’ bones visible, their makeup was natural rather than heavy (which might have accentuated the impression of thinness), lighting was uniform and warm to ensure there were no hollows caused by shadows and their clothes were not revealing. The visual parts of their bodies appeared toned and slim.

ASA Assessment; Complaint upheld

The ASA noted that the model seated on the sofa wore a short skirt which showed her legs up to her mid thighs. We noted that her legs, while slim, appeared to be generally in proportion with the rest of her body which was not excessively slender or underweight — for example, her knee and ankle bones were not overly noticeable. We therefore considered that the model did not appear to be unhealthily thin.

We noted that the model leaning against the wall was wearing a long dress so that only her lower legs, ankles, neck and head were visible. We considered that her torso and arms were quite slender and appeared to be out of proportion with her head and lower body. Further, her pose elongated her torso and accentuated her waist so that it appeared to be very small. We also considered that her sombre facial expression and dark make up, particularly around her eyes, made her face look gaunt. For those reasons, we considered that the model leaning against the wall appeared to be unhealthily thin in the image, and therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Guccio Gucci SpA to ensure that the images in their ads were prepared responsibly.

Read more US Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Minnesota state seal The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has opposed draft revenge porn legislation that is being considered in Minnesota. The MPAA said the Minnesota draft law could restrict the publication of items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest .Revenge porn refers to the sharing of intimate images after the end of a relationship, but the definition is being ‘stretched’ a broader sense to describe any publication of explicit images without consent, for example when private photographs of a celebrity are leaked online.

Opponents of revenge porn legislation have argued that some of the new laws are too broad in scope, and that existing copyright, communication and harassment laws sufficiently cover the subject. ‘Intent to harass’

The MPAA, which represents six major Hollywood film studios, said the Minnesota law could limit the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, constitutionally protected material . It cited images of Holocaust victims and prisoners at Abu Ghraib as examples of images depicting nudity which are shared without the subjects’ consent.

The MPAA called for the legislation to clarify that images shared without consent only broke the law if they were shared with an intent to harass . In a statement, the organisation said:

The MPAA opposes online harassment in all forms. While we agree with the aims… we are concerned that the current version of the bill is written so broadly that it could have a chilling effect on mainstream and constitutionally-protected speech.

Read more Middle East Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

ndr angers erdogan video Ankara reportedly tried to pressurise Berlin into censorsing a satirical clip aired by German broadcaster NDR earlier this month.However, the show’s producers decided to amplify the message and released English and Turkish subtitled versions of the video criticizing the Turkish President.

Following the broadcast of the satirical piece titled Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan on an NDR show titled Extra 3 on March 17, German Ambassador Martin Erdmann was summoned several days later to officially explain in length the reasons for the broadcaster’s behavior. An anonymous Turkish diplomat told AFP:

We demanded that the programme be deleted.

On Tuesday, the Foreign Office in Berlin said that Erdmann has been called in once again. However, during the meeting the German ambassador made it clear to the Turkish side that Germany is home to freedom of speech which it will protect. Erdmann said:

The rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the protection of fundamental freedoms, including press freedom… need to be protected.

In the meantime, Extra 3 went out on a full-blown offensive against Erdogan’s demand. The program’s Facebook page shared an image of the request to stop showing the clip under the caption: Erdogan’s idea of ‘TV on demand’ .

The satirical piece about The big boss from Bosporus, who is ripe for his great Ottoman Empire, starts off with criticizing Erdogan crackdown on freedom of speech. Erdogan is also criticized for the alleged shuffling of the electorate votes and cracking down on women.

The controversy inevitably added to the popularity of the video, with the English version of the video on YouTube receiving over 1.7 million views in less than 24 hours after the news first emerged of Ankara summoning the German Ambassador.

Read more US Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

FBI logo Advertising website Backpage.com, which includes small ads for sex workers, won an appeal on the 14 th of March, 2016. The ruling states that Backpage is not responsible for any trafficking that may happen because of the advertisements on their website.Backpage provides free or cheap advertisements and has been used a lot by sex workers since the removal of Craigslist in 2010. Ads are moved to the front using Bitcoin transactions after credit card companies were pressured to stop working for the website. In recent years, the website has been subject to multiple lawsuits in different states. The website has also been subject to hearings in the United States Congress, as NSWP reported here .

Three young women who alleged they had been trafficked through ads on Backpage brought the civil case forward. They were all minors at the time the events occurred. As Mike Masnick reports at Techdirt , the case alleged that Backpage was responsible for this activity under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorisation Act (TVPRA) of 2008. The TVPRA states that, anyone who “knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged” in an act of sex trafficking.

However, Backpage argued that they were not responsible because they are protected through section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 states that websites are not responsible for the actions of their users.

The three women argued that Backpage was aware of and encouraged sex trafficking on their website. The court did not accept this assessment, upholding their protection under section 230.

Read more News: Latest Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Secondhand Lions Secondhand Lions is a 2003 USA family comedy drama by Tim McCanlies.
Starring Haley Joel Osment, Michael Caine and Robert Duvall. Youtube link BBFC link IMDb

BBFC category cuts were required for a PG rated 2003 cinema release. Uncut and 12 rated on home video. Uncut and MPAA PG rated in the US.

Summary Notes

A boy named Walter is dropped by his mother Mae at his great-uncles’ house. Later,Walter will find out his great-uncles’ big secret. And rumors say that Hub & Garth, Walter’s great uncles, have stolen much gold & money. (some

 say they stole it from Al Capone) Did they really steal that money or not?

See video from YouTube

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

France flag Europe’s right to be forgotten is a nasty and arbitrary censorship power used to hide internet content such as past criminal history. Many think it tramples on the public’s right to know, as quite a few examples have born out.

It seems that France and the EU thinks that such content should be censored worldwide, and have fined Google 100,000 euro for allowing non EU internet viewers to see information censored in the EU.

Since EU laws don’t apply elsewhere, Google at first just deleted right to be forgotten requested results from its French domain. However, France pointed out that it would be easy to find the info on a different site and ordered the company to scrub results everywhere. In an attempted compromise, Google started omitting results worldwide as long as it determined, by geolocation, that the search was conducted from within France.

But now EU internet censors have rejected that idea (as it would be easy to get around with a VPN) and fined Google effectively for allowing Americans to see content censored in the EU. Google commented:

We disagree with the [regulator’s] assertion that it has the authority to control the content that people can access outside France.

In its ruling, France’s CNIL censor says that geolocalizing search results does not give people effective, full protection of their right to be delisted … accordingly, the CNIL restricted committee pronounced a 100,000 euro fine against Google.

Google plans to appeal the ruling.

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

cinema advertising association logo From 31 March 2016, the BBFC will delegate to the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) the regulation of all cinema advertisements in the UK.

Following a Government consultation, the BBFC and the CAA agreed to end the dual regulation of advertisements shown in UK cinemas. Henceforth, the CAA will assess and classify all cinema advertisements. The BBFC retains its classification role in relation to trailers, public information films, campaigning films and all other theatrical works.

DCMS carried out a public consultation in May 2012 on the future regulation of cinema advertising. At the time, the BBFC and the CAA both classified cinema advertisements. The BBFC and the CAA argued in favour of removing this dual regulation and duplication of responsibility. As a result, the BBFC has stepped back from the day-to-day classification of cinema advertisements and sub-contracted responsibility for classifying such advertisements to the CAA.

In the event of there being any doubt as to whether a particular film should be considered an advertisement, the BBFC shall determine whether such film requires to be classified in accordance with its Classification Guidelines and will inform the CAA accordingly.