Freedom of Information

I felt that Ofcom had failed to answer the question actually asked, and was particularly interested to read that "Ofcom has published decisions about programmes investigated after broadcasting images of „semen/ejaculate and implied ejaculation‟." as 2 of the shows quoted to support banning this content were found acceptable and the other three were broadcast after the rule was published, so on 27 July I challenged their evasion.

Wanderer Wrote:Mr AAAA
Thanks for the data which I have now digested. The 2 reports quoted seem to be irrelevant. Neither assess the acceptability or otherwise of ejaculate, as opposed to hard core images showing ejaculation from a penis. If it is you belief that this specific is covered please quote page or paragraph numbers. To be clear this request covers the acceptability of liquid which may be ejaculate but where there is potential for ambiguity. The established standard is the popular film "Something About Mary" which is certificate 15.
Does the media tracker survey cover the acceptability of implied ejaculate?
Thanks for the information that there have been 66 complaints about what appears to be semen. How does this information contribute to research into acceptability? Can you break these figures down by year and broadcaster type (public service, general, adult) and program type (drama, sex education,comedy, adult) and broad time (8am-8pm, 8pm-midnight, midnight-5am, 5am-8am).
How many of these complaints were upheld/rejected/resolved, again broken down by year, broadcaster type and program type and broad time? For comparison supply equivalent overall figures for total numbers of complaints, complaints about sexual content, complaints about generally accepted standards by broadcaster type (public service, general, adult) for the last reporting year.
You quote rule 1.17 (R18). This is irrelevant. I asked about implied ejaculation, not explicit images.
Rule 1.18 - Has it been established that ambiguous images of a sticky liquid are "strong sexual content"? How? When? This goes to the core of this request.
Rule 1.20 is irrelevant. This refers to "intercourse", bodily penetration, whereas possible ejaculate is external.
Rule 2.1 - generally accepted standards: This also goes to the heart of the request. Where has the standard been assessed? You say there have been 66 complaints but, without access to details, I suspect that most were rejected. If Ofcom have rejected the vast bulk then Ofcom must be saying that images of (apparent) ejaculate are not in breech of generally accepted standards.
BCAP Rule 4.2 - Where is the evidence that images of (possible) ejaculate cause widespead offence? If referring to previous research please indicate exactly where by page or paragraph number.
You name 5 shows where Ofcom made decisions about „semen/ejaculate and implied ejaculation‟. One, A Girls Guide to 21 Century Sex, contained explicit images of ejaculation and was found not in breech of the broadcasting code. It is unclear how this example supports the case for banning such content.
Three, from Red Light, were broadcast after the guidelines "Ofcom guidance on the advertising of
telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services‟ were published. Interesting as these are they cannot be held as examples used to inform the rules as they occured after the rules were written.
I did not see The Farm (which year was this broadcast?) but believe that part of the offence was because a woman masturbated an animal,and partly because the scene was considered inappropriate for the program genre.
Thanks for these 5 examples but they really do not seem to support the case that Ofcom has any kind of objective independent evidence that implied ejaculation causes serious and/or widespread offence.
This is to request that you clarify the research references that you have supplied and supply the additional information about the 66 complaints mentioned. Let me know if this needs to be in a separate request.
Regards