(21-02-2013 01:14 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]Babestation currently displaying "XXXplisit Jada pics now available. Download them to your mobile" (spelling is them, not me).
Will they
1) Be done for offering inappropriate material with inadequate age verification
2) Be done for trades description problems cos they're not "xxxplisit" or
3) Have no action taken against them!
Well estabished legal principle that businesses cannot be sued for not breaking the law. They can argue that the pics are the most explicit allowed so ads are not misleading. Its one of the few areas where the law sides with porn barons.
(23-02-2013 00:15 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (21-02-2013 01:14 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]...
2) Be done for trades description problems cos they're not "xxxplisit" ...
Well estabished legal principle that businesses cannot be sued for not breaking the law. They can argue that the pics are the most explicit allowed so ads are not misleading. Its one of the few areas where the law sides with porn barons.
They may be the most explicit allowed, but that doesn't necessarily make them "xxxplisit", as advertised, just like S66 offering "hardcore" pics which, by their own admission, weren't meant to be hardcore.
It was posted somewhere here recently about the porn shop owner who was selling or renting movies that were not pornographic enough, and got done for it.
(23-02-2013 00:15 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (21-02-2013 01:14 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]Babestation currently displaying "XXXplisit Jada pics now available. Download them to your mobile" (spelling is them, not me).
Will they
1) Be done for offering inappropriate material with inadequate age verification
2) Be done for trades description problems cos they're not "xxxplisit" or
3) Have no action taken against them!
Well estabished legal principle that businesses cannot be sued for not breaking the law. They can argue that the pics are the most explicit allowed so ads are not misleading. Its one of the few areas where the law sides with porn barons.
Sorry but that has to be wrong - otherwise the whole Trades Descriptions Act would just be toilet paper!
The whole point of that legislation is that the product should fit the description! THAT is the law that is broken. Explicit does NOT mean, for example, just boobs. So if they claim explicit they cannot send something that in most reasonable peoples opinion is NOT explicit.
it would be exactly the same for say a drug company claiming something to be the strongest prescriptoin available when it wasnt.
^^ Ofcom say this concerning advertising whether the babe channels are live or not "Broadcasters should not suggest implicitly or explicitly that material is live when in fact it is prerecorded if it would result in the viewer being materially misled". So i'm guessing it's roughly the same for advertising the content of pic/vids etc, ie they should not suggest implicitly or explicitly in a way that would result in the viewer being materially misled that the pic/vids are explicit or hardcore when in fact they are not .
Isn't part of the problem the fact that there have never been legally-agreed definitions of terms such as 'explicit', 'hardcore', 'XXX' etc, therefore scammers can get away with describing their products in such a way and not get busted for it when they turn out to be nothing of the sort?
Terms such as 'R18' and 'sex works' are used by Ofcom and the BBFC to classify material but these terms are not used in porn marketing.
It seems to me that Ofcom word things in such a way that covers if there isn't legally agreed definitions, it's this viewers being misled either "implicitly or explicitly" wording that they use, it seems to me that Ofcom could find a channel in breach for just wording things in a way that implies something is explicit that leads to a viewer being materially misled .
This is the same Ofcom that found the Asian babes channel in breach for giving the impression that the girls were naked when in fact they had flesh toned knickers on, Ofcom said something about that in their opinion this was done to mislead the viewers into thinking the girls were nude, so found them in breach even though they weren't naked and hadn't broken any rules concerning nudity .
(24-02-2013 01:18 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that Ofcom word things in such a way that covers if there isn't legally agreed definitions, it's this viewers being misled either "implicitly or explicitly" wording that they use, it seems to me that Ofcom could find a channel in breach for just wording things in a way that implies something is explicit that leads to a viewer being materially misled .
I agree with that.
On the same point I always wonder how on earth Cellcast get away with offering 'explicit' pics of models by showing an image of them with legs open and an sms number on a piece of paper between their legs, implying that if you text the number you'll get a pic without the piece of paper and be able to 'see everything'. I would assume that this is a total lie.
(24-02-2013 00:49 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't part of the problem the fact that there have never been legally-agreed definitions of terms such as 'explicit', 'hardcore', 'XXX' etc, therefore scammers can get away with describing their products in such a way and not get busted for it when they turn out to be nothing of the sort?
Exactly. Judges take the attitude that they arent going out of their way to protect people buying illegal stuff from getting ripped off. So terms like "explicit" can be enforced, but only to the limit of what is legal on the relevant medium. If thats TV the courts turn round and say "What did you expect?"
Mr Mystery Wrote:it seems to me that Ofcom could find a channel in breach for just wording things in a way that implies something is explicit that leads to a viewer being materially misled .
But they wont. For some mysterious reason Ofcom pulls its punches and allows some leeway. Perhaps it is a threat they hold in reserve - play ball or we kill your mobile pic business? Just speculating.
Mr Mystery Wrote:This is the same Ofcom that found the Asian babes channel in breach for giving the impression that the girls were naked when in fact they had flesh toned knickers on, Ofcom said something about that in their opinion this was done to mislead the viewers into thinking the girls were nude, so found them in breach even though they weren't naked and hadn't broken any rules concerning nudity .
That was disgraceful and illustrates just how legally illiterate Ofcom are. They decide cases on what they meant to ban when they wrote the rules, not the strict letter of the rules. No proper judge would be allowed to get away with that. If I remember correctly part of the case was that the picture quality was so poor that viewers could not tell the difference. Its like issuing a speeding ticket when the speedcam is broken because the driver might have been speeding.