IanG
Senior Poster
Posts: 343
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 30
|
RE: New Ofcom Rules
eccles, where does OFCOM's Code ban the broadcast of "labial detail"? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. Indeed, I'm pretty sure broadcasters could challenge OFCOM's "justified by context" bullshit - after all, if labia can be exposed in lingering detail on a sex/med-utainment programme at 9pm, the same must surely be justified in an adult entertainment context after 10pm...?
Of course, it wouldn't be so bad if OFCOM had applied the law correctly - as it is written - but instead they've completely ignored the fact that they're supposed to be acting within the confines of the HRA when implementing the Comms Act. The HRA implicitly denies censorship on grounds of mere 'offence', yet OFCOM seem to believe the Comms Act overrides this essential part of our freedom and democracy. Indeed, Freedom of Expression enshrines the Right to cause offence - as there is simply no need to protect any form of expression that is acceptable to all and sundry. The Right to Freedom of Expression exists specifically "To protect the transmission of information and ideas that are NOT RECEIVED FAVOURABLY" - and that's according to the highest Judges in the land and the ECHR.
The Comms Act states that OFCOM are "to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material". It doesn't say OFCOM are to act upon the whims of mindless cretins who feel lady bits shouldn't be allowed on our TV screens. I've seen 100s of lady lips in my time and found none of them to be offensive or harmful let alone offensive and harmful. Indeed, anyone subscribing to encrypted adult shows will certainly see lots of lady bits.
As I've seen lots of fanny in programmes like the Sex Ed Show, Embarassing Bodies and BSExtreme, it is clear that OFCOM's Code doesn't ban the broadcast of labial detail on either encrypted or unencrypted TV channels. So where exactly OFCOM get the idea that they can haul certain channels over the coals for broadcasting material that's allowed on other (mainstream) channels is somewhat perplexing and indicates some application of double 'standards' or, (most likely) some inherant and unjustified prejudice against certain types of channels/programming and/or viewers.
A new dittie: The Buggers 2010 (Ofwatch slight return) http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid556229
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2011 02:16 by IanG.)
|
|
11-08-2011 02:15 |
|
StanTheMan
Banned
Posts: 3,790
Joined: May 2009
|
RE: New Ofcom Rules
(11-08-2011 02:15 )IanG Wrote: As I've seen lots of fanny in programmes like the Sex Ed Show, Embarassing Bodies and BSExtreme, it is clear that OFCOM's Code doesn't ban the broadcast of labial detail on either encrypted or unencrypted TV channels. So where exactly OFCOM get the idea that they can haul certain channels over the coals for broadcasting material that's allowed on other (mainstream) channels is somewhat perplexing and indicates some application of double 'standards' or, (most likely) some inherant and unjustified prejudice against certain types of channels/programming and/or viewers.
This and everything else you said in the full post sums up perfectly how outrageous Ofcom's treatement of the Babeshows is, but if it really is this black and white, why the hell has no one called their bluff yet?
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2011 13:03 by StanTheMan.)
|
|
11-08-2011 13:02 |
|
StanTheMan
Banned
Posts: 3,790
Joined: May 2009
|
RE: New Ofcom Rules
(11-08-2011 13:51 )shankey! Wrote: [snip] ... i reckon within a few months of them all going down one would come back with a show and because all the rest would be bankrupt would have the audience at their beck and call maybe with some decent shows ,BUT I BET THE SCREEN WOULD BE COVERED IN ADVERTISING !
In that situation the opposite would be the case, surely? If you're the only one broadcasting then you have no competitors and wouldn't need to put on show to get your audience, as you'd already have them.
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2011 14:29 by StanTheMan.)
|
|
11-08-2011 14:28 |
|