Pornography to be allowed on TV

johnm · 30-06-2010 16:48

(30-06-2010 08:00 )vostok 1 Wrote:
(30-06-2010 01:07 )c1154901 Wrote: If you think that the only reason why hardcore porn is not on tv is because of pressure from the sex shop / adult industry (such a renowned and powerful lobbying group!!), quite frankly you and your friends are deluded

I did not say that the only reason R18 is not on encrypted TV is because of "pressure" from the A.I.T.A.
What I said was: "The biggest critics of allowing R18 on encrypted subscription TV are the A.I.T.A"

Take a look at the Ofcom website. Who makes the claim that R18 on TV would be harmful to children?
The religious groups?: No.
Tory Backbenchers?: No.
Daily Mail readers?: No.
The Adult Industry Trade Association?: Yes.

Here are their views made to Ofcom:

"Dear xxxxxxxxxx
I am writing on behalf of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), of which I am a committee member. AITA was set up in May 03 to ensure that the interests of the adult industry are adequately represented to the Government, regulators and the media. We provide services to members, in particular information on relevant legislation and regulations; we promote the adult industry generally and seek to raise standards and perceptions.

In short, we are seeking fairer trading conditions for adult retailers.

AITA has examined OFCOM's consultation paper and paid particular interest to the section outlining the possibility of R18 movies being broadcast in UK. The committee is wholeheartedly against hardcore being broadcast on television, even through encrypted services. The Video Recordings Act (1984) restricts the sale of R18 movies from licensed sex shops ONLY and the transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18. If OFCOM were to allow R18 movies to be broadcast directly into homes with only a PIN code safeguard, we feel that this would not provide adequate protection for minors. Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops."

Full PDF version here.

Quote:You also continue to bring up the Law which you claim isn't being properly regulated by Ofcom, again complete nonsense, if your argument had any substance Ofcom could be challenged legally, which hasn't happened

Challenged legally by who exactly?
Which Adult satellite broadcaster has wanted to mount a legal challenge?: None.

As you are aware, Portland TV (TVX) received the record fine for an adult satellite broadcaster, (for briefly showing hardcore), after a complaint made to Ofcom by Benelux Ltd (Playboy TV).

The previous holder of the record fine for an adult satellite broadcaster, (for briefly showing hardcore), was held by Benelux Ltd (Playboy TV), after a complaint made to Ofcom by Portland TV (TVX).

The adult satellite broadcasters are the ones who are complaining against hardcore being shown on TV, not Daily Mail readers, Tory Backbenchers or the religious groups.

I'm sure you are aware of who put up the cash to bring about the legal challenge which in turn allowed Hardcore on video...

(Then) Home Secretary Jack Straw defeated in court in about 2 minutes by this man's lawyers:

Incidentally, he proclaims that a hardcore video or DVD sold through a Sex Shop is perfectly safe, but hardcore on an encrypted Satellite or Cable channel is a danger to children. Perhaps that is because he owns the UK's biggest chain of sex shops.... (And yes, that is his mansion in the background.)

Quote:If hardcore sex was shown on Sky encrypted or otherwise I guarantee that within six months it gets pulled through the political pressure it would generate - so all the arguments about laws are irrelevant in my eyes.

What political pressure caused R18 sold in sex shops to get pulled?
None. Because it became legal. A court case was won.

Quote:Again, the main problem that you continue to skip over is:

1. who would support / advocate the policy "hardcore sex on T.V" (politicians, media figures)? you would find 100 people against for every 1 in support

2. Would the policy be popular (general public)? I would say at least 75% against, Daily Mail would have a field day, defo not a vote winner

Your answer

I will say it once again:

Hardcore is not on TV because the adult broadcasters do not want it.

(30-06-2010 08:16 )vostok 1 Wrote:
(30-06-2010 01:07 )c1154901 Wrote: - that is sad - i urge you to pursue other interests as no-one can tell me that the concept of "Ofcoms regulation of television"
is a worthwhile / rewarding pursuit.

Give me a five minute "Trolley Dash" in your licensed Sex Shop and I promise to never speak about the absence of Hardcore on television again.

saying that the channels would have an unfair advantage over sex shops is the same as saying sky movies has an unfair advantage over blockbuster there is more than enough business for both to exist.

eccles · 02-07-2010 00:57

Good point. If Blockbuster or HMV tried to stop the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky from showing movies "because it might hurt our business" the politicians from all parties and the competition commission would show them the door.

And if Blockbuster set a premium subscription film channel and campaigned to stop themselves showing exactly the same films they have in their shops on TV they would be sent to a nice rest home with padded walls.

There used to be one big and two small nightclubs in my town. But for the past few years there has only been the big one - the small ones had a series of problems, lost customers and lost their licences. Strange that.

Interesting letter that from the Adult Industry Trade Association that Vostok1 quotes, and I quote selectively:
"I am writing on behalf of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), of which I am a committee member.
...
In short, we are seeking fairer trading conditions for adult retailers.

...The committee is wholeheartedly against hardcore being broadcast on television, even through encrypted services... Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops."

Perhaps I am linking two unrelated things, but were the AITA saying that there would be unfair competition for business from under 18s? They give that impression because they do not indicate any other way that they would loose business.

While on the subject, they said there were just 250 licenced sex shops in the UK. As the UK has a surface area of 94,248 square miles that is just one sex shop every 377 square miles, or an average distance of nearly 20 miles between each one. As they cluster together in big towns I wouln't be surprised if there were parts of the UK where you could be 50 miles from the nearest sex shop. Population is about 65 million so that's one sex shop per 260,000 people - hardly impressive. Even the Post Office is more convenient.

Finally they also claimed that "sex shops ... transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18". Perhaps I have this wrong, but so far as I know, sex shops have no mandatory age verification, unlike encrypted adult channels. We all know face-to-face transactions do not stop under age drinking. If you look over 18 there is nothing to stop you paying in cash and the transaction does not involve giving your home phone number and bank account details, unlike adult TV channels. In some respects sex shops seem to offer offer significantly less age verification.

IanG · 05-07-2010 15:57

eccles, I agree, johnm has an extremely valid point. There are currently over 100,000 titles listed on the Internet Adult Movie Database and that's just the US porn market. Part of the appeal of TV stations is that they produce exclusive live and in-house material with their own stable of actors/presenters. I doubt very much adult channels would go head-to-head with retailers for the rights to broadcast the latest releases. Let's face it, if $ky movies can put out the latest blockbusters without DVD sellers like Tesco, Virgin and HMV climbing the walls then the market can obviously take it.

There's such a back catalogue of 'classic' porn movies from the hay days of well-made porn movies that there's no need for TV channels to encroach on the sex shop trade - many of these films are no longer available for retail so their rights are up for grabs I bet. The AITA argument is quite frankly BULLSHIT. I doubt its even a real association and, moreover, if it is real then they SHOULD be arguing for a change in the law to bring them in-line with the rest of Europe who can, for example, advertise R18 on line and sell R18 via mail order to UK customers. Why UK based companies can't do the same is total and utter nonsense and a legacy of the illegally enforced VRA 1984 and the totally unamended, unread and unnecessary VRA 2010 (aka VRA 1984).

Sexual progress in this country and acceptance of pornography as the harmless and beneficial medium it is now PROVEN to be, is actively being held back by religiously corrupted freaks, scaremongers and human rights abusers. And I'm sick to death of them.

KateP · 05-07-2010 17:25

(05-07-2010 15:57 )IanG Wrote: eccles, I agree, johnm has an extremely valid point. There are currently over 100,000 titles listed on the Internet Adult Movie Database and that's just the US porn market. Part of the appeal of TV stations is that they produce exclusive live and in-house material with their own stable of actors/presenters. I doubt very much adult channels would go head-to-head with retailers for the rights to broadcast the latest releases. Let's face it, if $ky movies can put out the latest blockbusters without DVD sellers like Tesco, Virgin and HMV climbing the walls then the market can obviously take it.

There's such a back catalogue of 'classic' porn movies from the hay days of well-made porn movies that there's no need for TV channels to encroach on the sex shop trade - many of these films are no longer available for retail so their rights are up for grabs I bet. The AITA argument is quite frankly BULLSHIT. I doubt its even a real association and, moreover, if it is real then they SHOULD be arguing for a change in the law to bring them in-line with the rest of Europe who can, for example, advertise R18 on line and sell R18 via mail order to UK customers. Why UK based companies can't do the same is total and utter nonsense and a legacy of the illegally enforced VRA 1984 and the totally unamended, unread and unnecessary VRA 2010 (aka VRA 1984).

Sexual progress in this country and acceptance of pornography as the harmless and beneficial medium it is now PROVEN to be, is actively being held back by religiously corrupted freaks, scaremongers and human rights abusers. And I'm sick to death of them.

I would not say pornography is harmless at all I am not against porn but not all porn can be lumped into all porn is harmless

you will never get fta channels showing porn you dont even get that in the states its ppv and there porn industry makes billions while I agree that sex shops need to be look at in the states they have mega shops that sell porn dvds and stuff here we put them in dirty back alleys

is this just another way for the industry that is in trouble because you can get all the porn you want today for free online to make more cash

~~StanTheMan~~ · 05-07-2010 17:56

(30-06-2010 16:48 )johnm Wrote: If OFCOM were to allow R18 movies to be broadcast directly into homes with only a PIN code safeguard, we feel that this would not provide adequate protection for minors. Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops."

The first highlighted sentence didn't really need saying, did it? Their whole reasoning for not wanting R18 on TV is clealry there in the second highlighted sentence. Do they honestly expect us to believe that first claim is meant sincerely?

mrmann · 05-07-2010 19:23

(05-07-2010 17:56 )StanTheMan Wrote:
(30-06-2010 16:48 )johnm Wrote: If OFCOM were to allow R18 movies to be broadcast directly into homes with only a PIN code safeguard, we feel that this would not provide adequate protection for minors. Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops."

The first highlighted sentence didn't really need saying, did it? Their whole reasoning for not wanting R18 on TV is clealry there in the second highlighted sentence. Do they honestly expect us to believe that first claim is meant sincerely?

That's great and all, but I just want to see some damn full frontal for pete's sake!!! Can't they just give us that, on encrypted or not encrypted? I don't care about R18! I just want to see a vagina for once!

Stop treating the vagina as a disgusting creature! It's nice, and friendly, and it WON'T eat us!!! I promise.

~~StanTheMan~~ · 05-07-2010 19:32

(05-07-2010 19:23 )mrmann Wrote: Stop treating the vagina as a disgusting creature! It's nice, and friendly, and it WON'T eat us!!! I promise.

You obvioulsy haven't seen Teeth.

... sorry, I'm not helping the cause with that, am I?

I know what you mean about the whole R18 thing, mrmann, but there has to be a limit somewhere and I think R18 is the next one up from what we have now.

mrmann · 05-07-2010 22:21

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:
(05-07-2010 19:23 )mrmann Wrote: Stop treating the vagina as a disgusting creature! It's nice, and friendly, and it WON'T eat us!!! I promise.

You obvioulsy haven't seen Teeth.

... sorry, I'm not helping the cause with that, am I?

I know what you mean about the whole R18 thing, mrmann, but there has to be a limit somewhere and I think R18 is the next one up from what we have now.

A normal body part is R18??? That's ridiculous!!!

~~StanTheMan~~ · 05-07-2010 22:45

(05-07-2010 22:21 )mrmann Wrote:
(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:
(05-07-2010 19:23 )mrmann Wrote: Stop treating the vagina as a disgusting creature! It's nice, and friendly, and it WON'T eat us!!! I promise.

You obvioulsy haven't seen Teeth.

... sorry, I'm not helping the cause with that, am I?

I know what you mean about the whole R18 thing, mrmann, but there has to be a limit somewhere and I think R18 is the next one up from what we have now.

A normal body part is R18??? That's ridiculous!!!

I could be wrong and probably am. It's an interesting point, actually. I know they're classed as 'adult' channels, but if what we get on the nightshows, on an average night, was stuck on a dvd and submitted to the BBFC for classification, what cert would it get? If it received an 18, then the next up from that is R18.

My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine. Meaning that content could be much harder and stay within 18 cert limits.

~~Gaz "AV1" Aston~~ · 05-07-2010 22:58

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote: My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine.

I think it would more likely be a 15A Tongue

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Pornography to be allowed on TV
Author	Message