(02-01-2011 21:53 )Addison Wrote: I don't see how the briefest burst of full frontal nudity in a TV drama show is evidence of double standards or what have you. Didn't see 'Above Suspicion' myself, but as Light Entertainment suggests here, it sounds as though the nude scene was justifiable from the point of view of plot advancement/psychological development/rounding out of characters. The main crux is how long the nude woman was on screen for (about five seconds?); just enough to add an extra layer of intrigue to the mix and help to illuminate a character from a fresh angle. Duration and – however much you dislike the idea - context are the keys, as they are in relation to most glimpses of nudity you'll see featured in that grey area on terrestrial TV, when a feature length adult-orientated drama finishing at eleven has its start at nine.
Seems a bit like straw clutching to ask why hours of live, unfolding, unvettable-in-advance television can't feature repeated views of exposed genitalia for the obvious and sole purpose of sexual gratifying its as-near-as-damn-it totally male audience, when a pre-recorded, pre-viewable TV drama watched by a much broader demographic shows a blink-and-you'll-miss-it flash of full frontal...
Addison, have you read OFCOM's version of 'context'?
Here it is from section 2, "harm and offence"
Quote:Meaning of “context”:
Context includes (but is not limited to):
• the editorial content of the programme, programmes or series;
• the service on which the material is broadcast;
• the time of broadcast;
• what other programmes are scheduled before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
• the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular description;
• the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience;
• the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by giving information; and
• the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.
As I read the above, it strikes me as very odd indeed that hours of live sexually-oriented TV aimed at a satisfying the sexual desires of a horny audience doesn't fall under such contextual justifications above. The "likely size and composition of the audience" and their "likely expectations" for instance. The "surrounding progamming" too. The "extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential (i.e. 'TARGET') audence".
Indeed, the above 'context' most certainly SHOULD permit exactly the type of content THE SUBSCRIBERS of adult TV and the AUDIENCE/CALLERS of 'babechannels' WANT and PAY to see.
As I've said many times before, OFCOM have misquoted, misinterpreted and generally CORRUPTED the letter and meaning of The Comms Act 2003 in order to create and impose their anti-sex entertainment agenda.
The Comms Act clearly states OFCOM are to provide adequate protection against "offensive and harmful material". OFCOM seem to believe this reads and means "harmful and/or offensive material" (rule 2.1). OFCOM are NOT the Government. OFCOM DO NOT make Law. OFCOM are not empowered to interpret Law as they see fit nor can they set legal precedents. OFCOM are not free to ignore every principle of Human Rights legislation nor the Case Law of the ECHR - indeed, as a public body they are BOUND BY LAW to read and apply the Comms Act in such a way as to make it 100% compatible WITH the HRA and Case Law of the ECHR.
Moreover, the supposed 'context' OFCOM publish to 'guide' broadcasters in their Code is in fact a rehashing of the Comms Act criteria by which OFCOM ARE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THEIR CODE. Indeed, the 'context' according to OFCOM above is the actual Code Review Criteria from section 319(4) of The Comms Act 2003. The published 'context' is actually SUPPOSED TO GUIDE OFCOM IN AMENDING THEIR CODE...to "provide a broad range of services to diverse audiences", NOT to 'guide' broadcasters in censoring TV output - and that's THE LAW.
Is there any evidence to suggest nudity is "offensive and harmful material" if presented in a sexualised context? There would HAVE TO BE such evidence for OFCOM to defend their Code in a court of law...because that's exactly what the law says they're to do. Is nudity even "harmful and/or offensive material" in sexual context...assuming OFCOM can reinterpret the law to suit their puritanical attitudes expressed in their Code? Again, there SHOULD BE SOME EVIDENCE to support this view IF OFCOM are to justify their position in a court of law. At the end of the day, if OFCOM cannot convince a court they're acting within reason AND the bounds of the law then, OFCOM are in breach of the law and have overstepped their remit by a huge margin.