Quote:Ofcom research shows that only “one in three households with multichannel television has set up access controls (32%)". Ofcom therefore does not consider that the existence of parental controls on set top boxes offers enough protection to under-eighteens from viewing unsuitable material of this nature.
Perhaps it has escaped OFCOM's almighty powers of reasoning that only 1 in 3 households use parental controls BECAUSE only 1 in 3 households contains children under 18?
And WHO says (i.e. has PROOF) that any "material of this nature" is in fact "unsuitable" for persons under eighteen? If persons of 16 and over can legally suck and fuck and thereby obviously create and see "material of this nature" live and in colour, WHY can't persons of 16 and 17 watch the same on TV? After all, its quite OK according to OFCOM's 'rules' for persons well under 18 to watch folks being bumped-off, raped and beaten-up in any primetime soap opera yet, no one seems remotely concerned this will somehow pollute the morals of younger teens. Last time I checked, sex was still a socially acceptable pastime according to many people whereas murder, rape and robbery are still deemed socially unsuitable pastimes by the vast majority.
If OFCOM's attitude toward porn has any real foundation then they SHOULD be able to provide some proof to back it up. However, as I pointed out about a year ago, OFCOM themselves stated quite clearly in 2005 they have no evidence, and thus no reason, to assume sexually explicit material is in anyway a danger, and thus unsuitable material, for anyone of any age to view. Indeed, the High Court ruled against the BBFC's same unsubstantiated prejudice and unproven fearmongering and, hence, their illegal restriction, of everyone's right to watch totally harmless (i.e. child-safe) sexually explicit material.
OFCOM's ban on legally available and completely child-safe material is clearly an unfounded restriction upon everyone's right to freedom of expression. OFCOM cannot be balancing our rights against any need to protect anyone from that which has legally been deemed harmless based on the evidence and testimony of child wellfare experts. Indeed, they can only be violating our rights without rhyme, reason and required proof of necessity. OFCOM are in fact violating our rights on the basis of prejudice and bigotry masquerading under the guise of supposed 'offence' which could easily be prevented IF people engaged the parental controls fitted to every piece of televisual equipment sold in the UK. OFCOM have thus FAILED in their legal duty to adequately protect members of the public by ensuring they know how to protect themselves (and their children under 18) from inadvertent exposure to their own definition of 'unsuitable material' (which of course varies wildly across every demographic of sex, age, upbringing, education and religion).
OFCOM are a living travesty and a menace to freedom and democracy. Indeed, the quote above proves OFCOM are a bunch of ignorant, fact-twisting, morally repugnant, fascist dictators.