(21-09-2010 01:57 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (20-09-2010 23:51 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, it seems no fucker in this land is willing to charge OFCOM with Human Rights abuses and have their Code subjected to a Judicial Review
Trouble used to be that one of the largest players was a major operator of sex-shops and another was a major publisher of porn mags. Making R18 films available all night every night would have cost their sex shop and magazine businesses a fortune.
When Ofcom first consulted on their new Broadcast Code, including whether R18 should be shown on TV, one of the groups OPPOSING allowing it was the sex shop owners trade body, the AITA (see Ofcom Statement and AITA Letter)
That's right, the sex shop industry campaigned against it.
In broadcasting generally there is a clear recognition that if the same media organisation has both TV and print businesses there can be a conflict of interest between the two and there are restrictive rules about media cross-ownership. Doesnt seem to apply in this case - perhaps it should, perhaps sex shop owners and porn publishers should be banned from running TV channels. Theres seems to be a lack of fight among the big boys, and the smaller operators have been cowed into submission.
You say that seeing R18 would seriously hurt the person's business? What about the internet, where we can see much more and much worse than anything we're asking to see on the babe channels? We also have the websites for the women on the babe channels as well, so seeing R18 or even 18 on TV wouldn't make much of a difference.
I would assume (no firm evidence, just my summation) that allowing R18 strength films to be broadcast on TV would severely hurt the R18 DVD market. Why would anyone buy a DVD for pretty much the same as it would cost them to subscribe to a channel for a month?
(21-09-2010 19:46 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I would assume (no firm evidence, just my summation) that allowing R18 strength films to be broadcast on TV would severely hurt the R18 DVD market. Why would anyone buy a DVD for pretty much the same as it would cost them to subscribe to a channel for a month?
but people that have sky movies still buy films on dvd and rent them from places like blockbuster. love film etc, so i cant see R18 being on tv having any affect on sales from sex shops.
Yes, the AITA claimed that having R18 on TV would harm their sales.
Im not saying I agree with that, and the claim was made back in 2004 when the innernet was not as big as it is now and broadband did not exist.
They also claimed that sex shops have better protection mechanisms for under 18s than TV.
Point is that the sex shop representative campaigned against R18 on TV AT THE SAME TIME that one major sex shop owner was running encrypted sex shows.
What about today? Online porn sales are important for the big boys. Sex shops can cater for specialist tastes better than a general TV channel. DVDs still have a place for "that special evening" (that never quite works out that way) and rugby club ways. And the BBFC make it clear that there is a case for not allowing full strength live material - some R18 material pushes the boundaries of what is physically possible, etc and would be too risky live. Also some scenes are borderline legal even at R18, and if shown live would occasionally slip into absolute-ban territory. So Yes R18 sales could co-exist with R18 on TV. But its not my opinion that matters on this, campaigning by sex shop/magazine owners and channel owners will carry more weight.
For my first post, what I don't understand with the "in context" argument is how an arts channel can broadcast at lunchtime full frontal male and female nudity using the "in context" argument, yet the babechannels can't do the same after the watershed. Before people say they can't show detail, isn't showing a man's penis the same as a female's labia area on tv?
This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
(02-10-2010 10:48 )mikeboob Wrote: [ -> ]This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
Yes very true this country has turned into a nanny state, health and safety has gone completely ott, I have a bicycle and I've cycled it many times on a busy road without a helmet and if somebody told me I had to wear one I'd tell them to fuck off, I'll take my chances thanks very much, I smoke and some government health warning isn't going to make me stop. We'll all be dead anyway in a 100 years time from now anyway so why all this fuss about health and safety aswell as censorship rules. Why censor sex its what got us all here in the first place and its being going on since the dawn of time. Its a basic human emotion which we all have like it or not. If anyone has any knowledge of animal welfare sex is even listed as one of the 5 freedoms. Animal to animal obviously unless you're from Aberdeen as they shag sheep up there but the dons did get beat again so I suppose its the only fun those fans are going to get, but seriously ofcom are breaching our human rights.
(02-10-2010 10:48 )mikeboob Wrote: [ -> ]This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
Yes, but we know the Womens groups, Religious groups, Daily Mail et al, anti-porn crusaders and the general self-appointed do-gooding moral twats will all kick up a fuss at the first sign of 'porn nudity' or actual adult consensual sex on the TV; and any Government would cave under the pressure and go with the media controlled perceived faux public opinion.
Reigning in the control of OFCOM is one thing, dealing with the sadly predictable media moral outrage is quite another.
I cant get the image of that picnic out of my head. Please noone mention Jayne Mansfield.
Derek & Clive
(02-10-2010 01:41 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]For my first post, what I don't understand with the "in context" argument is how an arts channel can broadcast at lunchtime full frontal male and female nudity using the "in context" argument, yet the babechannels can't do the same after the watershed. Before people say they can't show detail, isn't showing a man's penis the same as a female's labia area on tv?
Youd have thought so, wouldnt you. But facts have little place in Ofcom world. Two women touching each other is allowed (within limits). All male-female shows are banned. This is despite the BBFC, that Ofcom tries to take as its model, clearly stating that it does not censor any sexuality more severely than any other.