(26-05-2010 00:05 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: (25-05-2010 23:38 )Digital Dave Wrote: I think there's some confusion here. Nobody is asking you to implement R18 on the FTA channels (ok, a few are but ignore them for the moment because that is illegal and would involve changing UK law, as you state).
What most people want is simply for FTA channels to have the right to show explicit nudity, should they and the girls wish.
There is no statute which forbids this, just muddled dictats from Ofcom which are contradictory, poorly argued and which have no basis in law, instead flying in the face of the freedoms inherent in European law.
This is what causes the annoyance on this forum - companies such as yourselves cringing under Ofcom's pronouncements when they don't need to. Don't pretend it's the law because it's not, you just want an easy life.
Nudity on was not the question being put to which we were responding: R18 was. Please be fair.
As to nudity, that is certainly permissable under encryption. That permission is exactly what allows Ofcom to prohibit nudity on free to air. The distinction between pin protected content and free to air content is explicitly stated in the relevant European law, which has direct effect in the UK. So, contrary to what you assert, that prohibition is the law, not merely discretionary policy.
In our earlier posts, we have given the html links to the relevant European and UK law, so you can check this out for yourself.
So how is explicit nudity, masturbation, including dildos, and explicit 2 girl shows broadcast on Hotbird, FTA, if European law prohibits it?
Also, The communications Act 2003, the Law in the UK regarding broadcasting, merely sets criteria which the 'regulator' has to apply in its 'regulation’ of broadcasting e.g. protecting under 18s, Harm & Offence etc. It was Ofcon who, arbitrarily, decided that the complete ban on R18 should remain in place, not the Law. Similarly, that, arbitrarily, nudity is not allowed on FTA, or, as the years rolled by, that close-ups of (covered) genital regions are not allowed, or that 2 pairs of panties have to be worn etc. all arbitrary, Ofcon decisions, NOT the Law.
Given the dubious excuses Ofcon have given for such censorship, if would seem at least possible that a judge would find their decisions, broadcast code etc. in breach of the LAW, whether the Communications Act, or the ECHR, which Ofcon are only too keen to point out that they have to comply with, yet they deny the fundamental right of Free Expression, without providing any real justification, let alone the strict justification that is required for a legal denial?
Also, AFAIK, the TWF prohibited censorship by means of a licensing system ( I assume its replacement is the same, but I stand to be corrected), which is why Ofcon are so adamant that they are not censors, because they know that, if proved, they would be acting illegally. I could go on, but the point is that there seems to be plenty scope for a judicial review of Ofcon’s broadcast code, procedures, actions etc., but you, and all the other broadcasters, have chosen not to investigate that option, so please do not continue to claim that you are forced into that position by the Law.
Would you like us to provide the arguments to put forward at a judicial review? We might even consider not charging, what, hundreds of pounds an hour?, unlike lawyers, for the service?