(14-03-2010 12:10 )Deb x Wrote: These shows aren't meant to be watched like they're films, or documentaries, or reality tv shows. They are live, and they are interactive. These complaints, whether genuine, or from rivals, are presented as if they're on behalf of, or coming from a casual viewer, but casual viewers aren't the primary audience (for the channel). Casual viewers aren't participating (i.e. making money for the channel which is its primary reason for broadcasting, and the reason it pays for airtime). Ofcom has consistently said that some sexual content is acceptable as long as it's in context, but the context of these shows is arguably significantly provided by that interactive aspect (i.e. phoning in) that is missing for the casual viewer. Any complaint is devoid of context. Any non-participating viewer has to accept that they aren't privy to the full context of what's showing onscreen. They can just enjoy what's there, or not bother (i.e. turn over) or fill in the gaps themselves. I'm not sure how someone can complain it's offensive when they don't have the full story.
Deb x, I can't remember if I posted a message along very similar lines - I refered to a recent case of a man accused of possessing 'realistic' animal porn (under the CJIB 'dangerous pictures' clauses) which was actually a cartoon. The Police/CPS went ahead with prosecution apparently without hearing the soundtrack. But it was the soundtrack which put the clip into its rightful context - namely the cartoon tiger turns to the viewer after shagging the woman and says "That sure beats the hell out of selling frosties". The court erupted into laughter and the case was dismissed as it was then clear this was not porn designed to turn people on but, comedy.
The real issue however is in the assumption made by Ofcom that material designed to turn people on has to suffer any restrictions whatsoever. This is not done out of a proven need or necessity, it is simply paranoid British tradition and has no basis in fact or reality. "Porn is evil", "dangerous", "harmful", "disgusting" - it is none of these things. Porn is beneficial to people's health and wellbeing - proven. Porn reduces sexcrime or at least has no effect on increasing it - proven. Sex is a natural part of life and in terms of evolution cannot at any point be harmful to the creatures that must perform it (eventually) to perpetuate the species. Logic dictates Ofcom, the British public, the BBFC, the Goverment etc. etc. etc. are all deluded fools who can't follow simple logic and arrive at a reasonable decision. They allow centuries of anti-porn brainwashing and 'Britishness' to cloud their judgement.
We all know their reasons are deeply flawed because in none of the places where porn is freely available on the high street and on TV is there any evidence of the 'bad things' Ofcom et al. claim would ensue, indeed, they're conspicuous by their absense. Indeed, the exact opposite effect is seen and a far safer environment for youngters exists - i.e. far lower rates of teen pregnancies and STI cases and, kids leaving it later to lose their virginity. The facts speak for themselves. Ofcom, the BBFC, the Government et alia are WRONG, plain and simple. They doing ALL the wrong things for ALL the wrong reasons. Yet they doggedly persist in insisting they're correct when the whole world shows them to be insane. But then that's the definition of insanity - to keep repeating the same thing and expect different results.