12-07-2010, 14:46
kasone, I posted section 319 of the Comms Act a few weeks ago on another thread, and added my own comments on what the clauses appear to mean to me (and no doubt any liberal/right-minded person).
I've also posted this 'explanation' Ofcom offered up to 'justify' the R18 ban back in 2006 a fair few months ago (another outing seems appropriate...) Source: http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm
They go on however, with a total crock of shit:
Ofcom ARE BOUND by EC Directives FULL STOP!
WHO are these vulnerable people Ofcom have decided are in circumstances that require Ofcom to flout their findings under the TVWF and ignore every safeguard in the HRA 1998?
You can see quite clearly in that Ofcom OPENLY admitted in 2006 that PIN and WATERSHED are more than satisfactory to ensure minors will not normally see R18 (or ANY 'adult' material) which, by the way, was declared SAFE for underage viewing by the High Court in the year 2000.
Ofcom CANNOT claim to be protecting anyone from that which is HARMLESS and, moreover, they can ONLY be abusing the fundamental rights of adult viewers as a result.
I've also posted this 'explanation' Ofcom offered up to 'justify' the R18 ban back in 2006 a fair few months ago (another outing seems appropriate...) Source: http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm
Ofcom Wrote:Ban on R18
This is fully explained in our statement:
Ofcom ... concluded that the transmission of R18 material is compatible with Article 22 (1) of the TWF.
In the absence of evidence of “serious” harm to minors, there can be no justification for an outright ban on this type of material under Article 22 (1) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (“the TWF Directive”). However, if the material is caught by the test of being material which is “likely to impair” the development of minors (TWF Directive, Article 22 (2)), then Ofcom still needs to be satisfied that suitable protections are in place to so as to ensure that minors will not normally see or hear such broadcasts, before the transmission of such material can be allowed.
Ofcom’s view is that measures currently available, such as PIN security and a late watershed, are consistent with the requirement that minors will not “normally” access these broadcasts. Article 22(2) does not therefore require a prohibition on the transmission of this material.
They go on however, with a total crock of shit:
Ofcom bullshit Wrote:However, Ofcom is not bound to adopt the standards applied in other European countries. It must consider its policy in the light of the UK legislation and its specific duties under the Act.
Ofcom ARE BOUND by EC Directives FULL STOP!
Ofcom bullshit Wrote:"In addition to the European provisions [above], UK legislation namely, the Act places specific duties on Ofcom, in particular it sets out a standards objective to protect the under-eighteens (Section 319 2(a)). It also requires Ofcom to have regard to “the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection” (section (3)(4)(h)). In light of this, if Ofcom is not satisfied that sufficient measures to protect the under-eighteens can be applied (for example, through scheduling and/or security mechanisms), then R18 material should not be transmitted.
WHO are these vulnerable people Ofcom have decided are in circumstances that require Ofcom to flout their findings under the TVWF and ignore every safeguard in the HRA 1998?
You can see quite clearly in that Ofcom OPENLY admitted in 2006 that PIN and WATERSHED are more than satisfactory to ensure minors will not normally see R18 (or ANY 'adult' material) which, by the way, was declared SAFE for underage viewing by the High Court in the year 2000.
Ofcom CANNOT claim to be protecting anyone from that which is HARMLESS and, moreover, they can ONLY be abusing the fundamental rights of adult viewers as a result.