Ofcom Discussion

If ofcunt actually look at the bigger picture here, porn could actually be deemed a good educational tool in stopping unwanted pregnancy's because the blokes would have a better understanding that the best way to prevent it is to shoot their load on the boobs as opposed to anything else

(15-02-2015 02:43 )eccles Wrote:  For the regulations to apply the content must be television like, and it is debatable whether recordings of a live sex show qualify. It does not compete with broadcast tv.

I agree, but ATVOD may not.
To quote myself from elsewhere, they have a definition of tv-like that includes "content that the average person may percieve to be like tv shows, or may mistakenly believe to be a tv channel, and therefore may believe to be regulated and controlled (as tv shows are)". Using that definition it could be argued that NO porn is tv-like, since no average person watching a hardcore porn would be likely to think they were watching the BBC since such content is clearly not allowed!

I can't help feeling that ATVOD is just a thinly veiled excuse for the government to start extending its grubby little paws into regulating internet content in general, something Cameron has made no secret about wanting.

ATVOD have referred She Bang to Ofcom for the for consideration of a sanction

http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultation...nline-porn

(16-02-2015 15:40 )russmeyer Wrote:  ATVOD have referred She Bang to Ofcom for the for consideration of a sanction

http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultation...nline-porn

This is a quote from ATVOD,

"material which might seriously impair under 18’s can only be made available if access is blocked to children."

How can an act that is imperative to the future of mankind i.e. offspring, seriously impair a child. They will either not know whats going on or laugh but "seriously impair?" Most kids are shagging at 13/14 anyway ..

(15-02-2015 11:48 )munch1917 Wrote:  I can't help feeling that ATVOD is just a thinly veiled excuse for the government to start extending its grubby little paws into regulating internet content in general, something Cameron has made no secret about wanting.

^I think you've hit the nail on the head and this is just the start. Where things will end with these encroaching attacks on our freedom and liberty I don't know, but it's important to try and stop it if we can. Exactly how we go about doing this i'm not sure, although getting rid of this UNELECTED shower of crap at the next election would be a start, but would labour be any different. I honestly don't know.

(14-02-2015 03:27 )HEX!T Wrote:  shebang may call themselves shebang tv but there a cam show so dont fall under the remit.if they find out they do or atvod decide they do then shebang would be wise to appeal straight away in court rather than in tribunal at ofcom.
that way atvod and ofcom will have to prove actual harm done.
coz it looks to me like there trying to regulate the web and thats beyond there remit as far as im aware and looks to me like there going for easy targets to fill there coffers rather than upholding standards.

That is good point, in a court of law how the hell would they prove it seriously harms children..That would make fantastic tv,ATVOD & Oftwats in court being put shouted down by not being able to prove the shite they spout is of a truthful nature. PROVE IT.

(16-02-2015 18:06 )hatessexistofcon Wrote:  

(16-02-2015 15:40 )russmeyer Wrote:  ATVOD have referred She Bang to Ofcom for the for consideration of a sanction

http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultation...nline-porn

This is a quote from ATVOD,

"material which might seriously impair under 18’s can only be made available if access is blocked to children."

How can an act that is imperative to the future of mankind i.e. offspring, seriously impair a child. They will either not know whats going on or laugh but "seriously impair?" Most kids are shagging at 13/14 anyway ..

"may" impair under 18s can mean anything - no doubt Ofcom will be clamping down on non stop religious channels where the potential downside is far worse. And gambling.

Hang on, doesn't ITV turn into a casino at night? And that's a public service channel.

Or Eastenders, where the average marriage doesnt last as long as the cake and several major cast members have got away with murder. Surely no one wants their kids growing up thinking thats normal.

Basically, ATVOD are following the path of the German web-regulator which has measures in place that anyone who accesses such material must indeed prove to the website that they are adult. That proof could be holding a valid credit-card or even providing a scan of an ID showing a date-of-birth.

They effectively closed down the fore-runner of Liveshow-tv since that was hosted in Germany although the owner was not German since it was simple membership with no proof.

But regulators know, unfortunately, that no one has the resources to challenge these decisions in a proper court so they always win regardless.

(17-02-2015 00:04 )DB83 Wrote:  But regulators know, unfortunately, that no one has the resources to challenge these decisions in a proper court so they always win regardless.

Playboy? Not enough resources?

Or Portland, owned by a man who sold a TV station for £400,000,000?

Not cost effective I can believe, but they have the resources. Its almost as if they dont want to rock the boat.

Granted. Maybe 'no one' was a bad choice of words. I was thinking more in lines of smaller operators like this current case under review.

But this 'tv like' 'rule' is a bit concerning since there are many streams that are just that - streaming tv with open access. And one person's' 'erotica' is another persons 'porn'