RE: playboy, ofcom, and complaints!!
PillowPants, are you saying you have to enter the PIN at the start of every programme? If so, then this is fucking nuts.
ALL that is actually required to fulfill Ofcom's 'duty' to protect the under 18s and those of a childish disposition from supposed "harm and offence" is:
1) the time of the broadcast - i.e. watershed restrictions
2) an audio warning or announcement before the programme broadcasts
3) an always on-screen age-rating symbol or content warning symbol
And that's all that's required to protect the whole population from unnecessary offence or some other 'impairment' according to TVWF/AVMS. Ofcom do not know something nobody else does. As far as TVWF/AVMS are concerned "gratuitous violence" is every bit as "potentially harmful" to minors as "pornography". Of course, the "pornography" that the TVWF/AVMS refer to is Euro-strength hardcore, including watersports and vaginal/anal fisting, which the BBFC (thanks to the OPA) kindly and dutifully remove from virtually all R18-rated sex works.
Ofcom have absolutely no proof and no evidence and, hence, NO REASON to suspect or believe R18-porn is harmful to anyone of any age. The High Court did not rule in favour of hardcore sex at R18 because it COULD or WOULD harm children that saw it. Oh no. The High Court ruled in favour of hardcore at R18 BECAUSE the "risk to children is INSIGNIFICANT". And I'm pretty sick of saying it but, THAT'S THE LAW OF THIS LAND. R18 is NOT harmful nor is it likely to cause any "impairment of the physical, psychological or moral development of minors" - end of!
Who these mysterious hoardes of 'vulnerable people' Ofcom claim to be protecting with the R18 ban and indeed, over-broad, unclear and draconian sanctions on 'adult sex' material, are actually unknown. If they even exist is actually unknown. So, it could be Ofcom are protecting little green men from Mars for all we know. And although it pains me to use such examples, did Ofcom's R18 ban or indeed, any of their censorial oversight, do anything to protect Baby Peter or Khyra Ishaq? These were "vulnerable children" were they not? They were neglected, starved, beaten and abused were they not? So where's Ofcom's protection? Where's the evidence of Ofcom's protection doing ANYTHING AT ALL to prevent the REAL harm children REALLY suffer in Britain? This whole protectionist pretence Ofcom et fucking alia use to impose censorship upon the free people of this land is UTTER BULLSHIT. Indeed, the whole censorial system in Britain is an insult to everyone's intelligence, in fact, it can only be welcomed by morons of the highest order.
Until Ofcom actually PROVE their sanctions do indeed 'save vulnerable people', Ofcom have no right, argument or reason to believe they're doing the 'right thing'. Without solid evidence that they're doing any real good (and the real evidence to the contrary is plain to see in every other free society that's lived with free access to porn for more than 30 years), Ofcom prove themselves to be incompetent, ignorant, human rights abusers of the first order. The law should protect us from such moronic evil fuckers but, alas, the moronic evil fuckers are the ones writing the law...
A new dittie: The Buggers 2010 (Ofwatch slight return) http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid556229
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2010 15:07 by IanG.)
|