20-02-2013, 00:06
Thought people would jump on RCTVs comment about being in the room when some decisions were made. Lets not forget that when Ofcom started out things were a lot less clear cut than they are now. Ofcom were not as anti babe channels as they are now. There was a genuine expectation that R18 was about to be legalised. Recordings of encrypted shows from the time are eye watering and borderline hardcore with oral and finger action shown. It is hard to believe that Ofcom were not aware and never sampled content broadcast 7 nights a week. The decision about banning or permitting R18 was unclear and had to be referred to the full Ofcom board. Even after that babe channels showed harder material than would be permitted today with dental floss thongs revealing anal and labial detail, slips and over the top knicker rubbing.
The territorial argument is a tricky one. Western governments like to say they have nothing to fear from foreigners. UK citizens can access foreign papers, magazines and satellite channels unlike citizens in repressive states like North Korea and China. But what if a foreign journalist films interviews with striking miners in the UK and uplinks from abroad? Suppose they use a satellite link to transmit to their country, where content is uploaded to a different satellite that UK citizens can receive? Now cut out one of the satellites, and replace the foreign journalist with a UK one like George Galloway or Ken Livingstone, but paid by a foreign broadcaster, on a channel regulated abroad, where foreign based management set the agenda. Put it the other way. If the BBC employ an Egyptian national to report on Egyptian news, that is broadcast on BBC World and received in Egypt, do you think of that as Egyptian or British news?
Of course, unlike the UK and Egypt (or Russia), all EU states have a shared understanding about broadcasting, porn and propaganda, differing just in detail.
As for Babestar, the reaction may have been over the top, but the Advertising Standards Authority repeatedly ordered them to stop broadcasting certain content. They blatantly ignored a direct order from the regulator, so the ASA asked Ofcom to act. Much as I liked Babestar, there is such a thing as asking for it.
My comment about babe channels having to stop selling pics and vids was half joking, half serious. The rules have ALWAYS said free to view channels must not advertise pornographic products. This has generally been understood to mean R18 DVDs and porn websites. For years Ofcom have been selectively blind to mobile downloads.
If anything Ofcom look as if they have softpeddled on Studio66. They always come down hard on daytime material and the transition period “shortly” after 9. They could have gone straight to a fine. Instead S66 gets a warning that if they do the same again they might be considered for fine.
As for encrypted channels, either Ofcom accepts age verification measures like those for mobile phones and credit cards, or they dont. To lift the age gate on a mobile phone actual proof of age must be given. It might be possible for under 18s to have a company credit cards, ones guaranteed by parents or ones issued abroad. Even if a credit card was issued to an adult, the argument that adults might let kids use their phones applies to credit cards too. There are parents that let their kids enter the PIN at the cashpoint. It is not unknown for parents with chronic arthritis to get their kids to make online transactions using their bank cards. The big question is not whether kids ever use adult registered phones and credit cards, but if the level protection is adequate.
The territorial argument is a tricky one. Western governments like to say they have nothing to fear from foreigners. UK citizens can access foreign papers, magazines and satellite channels unlike citizens in repressive states like North Korea and China. But what if a foreign journalist films interviews with striking miners in the UK and uplinks from abroad? Suppose they use a satellite link to transmit to their country, where content is uploaded to a different satellite that UK citizens can receive? Now cut out one of the satellites, and replace the foreign journalist with a UK one like George Galloway or Ken Livingstone, but paid by a foreign broadcaster, on a channel regulated abroad, where foreign based management set the agenda. Put it the other way. If the BBC employ an Egyptian national to report on Egyptian news, that is broadcast on BBC World and received in Egypt, do you think of that as Egyptian or British news?
Of course, unlike the UK and Egypt (or Russia), all EU states have a shared understanding about broadcasting, porn and propaganda, differing just in detail.
As for Babestar, the reaction may have been over the top, but the Advertising Standards Authority repeatedly ordered them to stop broadcasting certain content. They blatantly ignored a direct order from the regulator, so the ASA asked Ofcom to act. Much as I liked Babestar, there is such a thing as asking for it.
My comment about babe channels having to stop selling pics and vids was half joking, half serious. The rules have ALWAYS said free to view channels must not advertise pornographic products. This has generally been understood to mean R18 DVDs and porn websites. For years Ofcom have been selectively blind to mobile downloads.
If anything Ofcom look as if they have softpeddled on Studio66. They always come down hard on daytime material and the transition period “shortly” after 9. They could have gone straight to a fine. Instead S66 gets a warning that if they do the same again they might be considered for fine.
As for encrypted channels, either Ofcom accepts age verification measures like those for mobile phones and credit cards, or they dont. To lift the age gate on a mobile phone actual proof of age must be given. It might be possible for under 18s to have a company credit cards, ones guaranteed by parents or ones issued abroad. Even if a credit card was issued to an adult, the argument that adults might let kids use their phones applies to credit cards too. There are parents that let their kids enter the PIN at the cashpoint. It is not unknown for parents with chronic arthritis to get their kids to make online transactions using their bank cards. The big question is not whether kids ever use adult registered phones and credit cards, but if the level protection is adequate.