(14-02-2010 21:27 )seth Wrote:  I know, but if everybody stopped subscribing, it may force these channels to contest Ofcom's ridiculous censorship on porn. All the time people are subscribing, there's no incentive for these channels to take ofcom to the courts, human rights, or whatever they can to try to change these silly rules.

(14-02-2010 04:49 )Cobblers Wrote:  I expect when watching adult entertainment channels to see adult entertainment.

If that adult entertainment takes the form of sexual material, then I expect no restriction on the type of material depicted, providing it is legal and generally considered not harmful. This is the criteria the BBFC decided on after their major overhaul of the classification guidelines a few years ago, and I fail to see why it does not apply to television viewing. Anyone who finds an R18 DVD lying around can watch it by simply bunging it in a player. The BBFC have taken this into account, and concluded that the danger and potential harm posed by someone under the age of 18 doing this are not sufficiently proportionate to justify banning such material altogether.

Quote:With digital TV platforms, you can't just bung an adult channel on like you can an adult DVD or video. You need to know the PIN code, you need the adult section of the EPG to be visible through the digibox settings and, in the case of the subscription channels, you need access to a credit card or similar age verification payment system. Yet Ofcom consider that these obstacles are not sufficient to protect children, and that the harm posed to them by viewing such material DOES justify a complete ban. Why the discrepancy - does Ofcom know something about this that the BBFC don't? Why won't they reveal the criteria which they used to reach a different opinion than the BBFC?

Quote:Why do I frequently see in the Ofcom Bulletins that broadcasts on various channels which have attracted multiple complaints, sometimes in the hundreds, do not even warrant a written response before being noted as not upheld, yet upheld complaints about the adult channels often come about due to 1 or 2 complaints.

Quote:Exactly what benefit do broadcasters of the 900 channels receive from being in the adult section of the EPG? Ofcom frequently respond to complaints about them in the Bulletin by saying that being in the adult section of the EPG does not offer any concession on the guidelines by which channels not in the adult section abide by. So why bother with it at all?

Quote:And why should harder material be restricted to those who can afford it? If, as is frequently claimed, the use of credit cards is as much an age verification process as a payment method, then what's to stop a channel with PIN protection charging a token 10p a month to verify age, then broadcasting harder material for free supported by income from, say, a Babe style phone operation?

Quote:But yeah, basically - expectations? I expect as an adult to be allowed to watch whatever I want, within the confines of the law. I don't expect a self-appointed body to apply a far heavier set of restrictions than the law without some serious, academic research showing that such controls are both necessary and proportionate.

Ofcom Wrote:Ofcom ... concluded that the transmission of R18 material is compatible with Article 22 (1) of the TWF.

In the absence of evidence of “serious” harm to minors, there can be no justification for an outright ban on this type of material under Article 22 (1) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (“the TWF Directive”). However, if the material is caught by the test of being material which is “likely to impair” the development of minors (TWF Directive, Article 22 (2)), then Ofcom still needs to be satisfied that suitable protections are in place so as to ensure that minors will not normally see or hear such broadcasts, before the transmission of such material can be allowed.

Ofcom’s view is that measures currently available, such as PIN security and a late watershed, are consistent with the requirement that minors will not “normally” access these broadcasts. Article 22(2) does not therefore require a prohibition on the transmission of this material.

However, Ofcom is not bound to adopt the standards applied in other European countries. It must consider its policy in the light of the UK legislation and its specific duties under the Act.

In addition to the European provisions [above], UK legislation namely, the Act places specific duties on Ofcom, in particular it sets out a standards objective to protect the under-eighteens (Section 319 2(a)). It also requires Ofcom to have regard to “the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection” (section (3)(4)(h)). In light of this, if Ofcom is not satisfied that sufficient measures to protect the under-eighteens can be applied (for example, through scheduling and/or security mechanisms), then R18 material should not be transmitted.

(19-02-2010 18:03 )aaron Wrote:  This poll refers to the free channels in the adult section, not the channels shown under encryption, as it would be logical to have higher expectations of encrypted and paid for material.