Pornography to be allowed on TV

(28-06-2010 22:31 )c1154901 Wrote:  You seem if I may say so to have an unhealthy interest in this topic. Why are you so desperate to see hardcore material on t.v? There are so many places these days to watch this material; online, dvds, downloads, streaming, why is there such a necessity for it to be on television?

Everyone enjoys the Babe Channels on here, but just accept them for what they are. I am not sure why you are so passionate about such a trivial issue but just imagine if you harnessed that passion in a positive direction. No offense mate just my opinion.

Fair question, but you are going to get a lot of flack for it.

DVDs - I don't have access to a licenced sex shop, and the novely soon wears off. I'm not going to shell out £20-£30 for something I'll only watch once. Also I don't really want the things round the flat.

Downloads - of what? Mostly it's copyright material. That's illegal and sooner or later there will be clampdown. Fancy explaining to your kids headteacher why you have been cut off the internet?
- Besides there is a huge difference bewteen seeing something on a large TV screen specifically designed for watching motion video, and watching on something the size of sheet of paper with lower colour depth and at the wrong height.
- They aren't reliable.
- There is a massive link between free porn sites and identity theft.

Online - similar comments to Downloads. Besides there is free stuff out there, but it's very easy to go round in circles, from one link site to another, ending up at a clip one has seen before. Like I said, not reliable.

Why shouldn't it be on TV?

If it is OK on other media, why single one out for a ban? What suits one person does not automatically suit others.

Softcore is quite nice, but never quite delivers. It's like never being able to buy beer in a pub, just shandy.

What I really like about babe channels is that they are live, unscripted and never exactly the same.

Just to clarify - my position is....don't care, plenty more important things to think about.

Also, when I was listing the alternative ways of watching hardcore material, that was not written in a way of a definite list (dvds, downloads, streaming,etc) that could be analysed line by line. It was written to merely suggest the proliferation of the material and the ease at which it can be viewed compared to say 15 yrs ago.

You are incorrect when you suggest "why shouldn't it be shown" as surely the person attempting to change the law must demonstrate a need for the law. Therein lies the problem.

This argument falls in the same category as many other ideas to legislation that probably will not make much of a difference to normal life but will never be passed because unfortunately there are just too many Daily Mail readers in this great country of ours. Another problem would be who would advocate / defend the law during scrutiny in Parliament and debates across the country, on television and newspapers. Can you imagine on Newsnight, some Tory back bencher vs Lolly Badcock in a debate! Lets face it, the arguments Against "hardcore porn on tv" would play out far more powerfully than the arguments For. To be honest, I can't even think of any strong arguments in favor that wouldn't be ridiculed within 2 mins. Please enlighten me if you know any?

(28-06-2010 23:36 )c1154901 Wrote:  Just to clarify - my position is....don't care, plenty more important things to think about.

Since you have more important things to think about, I will make this brief:

How R18 Started:
The R18 classification, was first steered through the committee stages of Parliament by Tory M.P David Mellor.

Who opposes the Broadcast of R18:
The biggest critics of allowing R18 on encrypted subscription TV are the A.I.T.A, the Adult Industry Trade Association, the trade association who represent UK sex shops.

Hardcore is not on TV because the adult broadcasters do not want it.

And besides, these days the Daily Mail only reports on asylum seekers, Christine Bleakley and someone called "Snooki from Jersey Shore".

(28-06-2010 23:36 )c1154901 Wrote:  Just to clarify - my position is....don't care, plenty more important things to think about.

Also, when I was listing the alternative ways of watching hardcore material, that was not written in a way of a definite list (dvds, downloads, streaming,etc) that could be analysed line by line. It was written to merely suggest the proliferation of the material and the ease at which it can be viewed compared to say 15 yrs ago.

You are incorrect when you suggest "why shouldn't it be shown" as surely the person attempting to change the law must demonstrate a need for the law. Therein lies the problem.

This argument falls in the same category as many other ideas to legislation that probably will not make much of a difference to normal life but will never be passed because unfortunately there are just too many Daily Mail readers in this great country of ours. Another problem would be who would advocate / defend the law during scrutiny in Parliament and debates across the country, on television and newspapers. Can you imagine on Newsnight, some Tory back bencher vs Lolly Badcock in a debate! Lets face it, the arguments Against "hardcore porn on tv" would play out far more powerfully than the arguments For. To be honest, I can't even think of any strong arguments in favor that wouldn't be ridiculed within 2 mins. Please enlighten me if you know any?

Hi c1154901, re your previous post, what makes you say I have an unhealthy attitude? Why is that? It's not unhealthy in Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and many more states across Europe.

If as you say there are so many sources for this type of material then why not all? I'm not suggesting its ever available without an adult verifying they wish to see it. It will without doubt be encrypted and PIN protected by default.

Now I note you, like one or two others, seem to believe there's a law against R18 on TV?

Quote:You are incorrect when you suggest "why shouldn't it be shown" as surely the person attempting to change the law must demonstrate a need for the law. Therein lies the problem.

(I'm not entirely sure what you mean so forgive if I misconstrue anything.)

Do you know of some law that bans R18 on TV? I think if there were such a law then all my fellow anti-censorship campaigners would likely be writing to their MPs for a change in the law rather than being subject to unnecessary censorship by some public busybody.

Ofcom know better than the Government and the people do they? They know how to lie, they know how to act unethically, they know how to demean and undermine the need and value of parents as guardians of their own children.

The only real factual reason Ofcom could possibly believe children and vulnerable people need their 'protection', is because they can't look after their own kids and vulnerable family members without banning R18 on TV. Or perhaps they'll dare to claim cases like Baby Peter and Khyra Ishaq are proof vulnerable children can be saved by their brand of protection?

Ah but of course, I forget Ofcom have the eyes of God and they can peer into everyone's home and see all those children they're protecting and exactly how they're protecting them. Well I hope they can because I sure as hell can't.

As far as I know they call this psychological disorder Projection. Ofcom are so crap at looking after their own children that they just know everyone else is too - they project their failings onto all those around them.

Insult upon injury.

They nearly drove me round the bend last week so obviously they're not doing anything to protect this vulnerable chap.

Anyhow, as we've established, thus far the ban on advertising is being lifted and nothing else. All I was suggesting is that this is the first step to full liberalisation. That will be coupled one hopes with a transfer of responsibility back to parents who are after all the only people in any position to actually enjoy their Rights and Freedoms as adults and fulfill their Responsibilities as parents.

I don't need Big Brother looking over my shoulder and I don't really need any reason to fight something I, along with many millions more, perceive to be a wrong. It is the principle of the thing and the theft of one of our most basic freedoms I protest. The fact I enjoy porn and know it to be harmless just makes the issue worse. It is not I that is obssessed by porn but, indeed, Ofcom.

You are of course correct that all this has little to do with the babe channels except, most of us would like them back the way they were before Ofcom stuck their size 10 in the works.

But Ofcom know best, after all, they are the all seeing, all knowing Gods of TV land. One wonders though, if Ofcom are so great at TV regulation why do they get so many complaints from offended members of the public? They're supposed to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and/or harmful material in the programmes transmitted by their licesees. Face it, Ofcom are crap at their job.

And you've got a problem with me having a problem with them?

Each to their own I guess.

If you think that the only reason why hardcore porn is not on tv is because of pressure from the sex shop / adult industry (such a renowned and powerful lobbying group!!), quite frankly you and your friends are deluded

You also continue to bring up the Law which you claim isn't being properly regulated by Ofcom, again complete nonsense, if your argument had any substance Ofcom could be challenged legally, which hasn't happened

If hardcore sex was shown on Sky encrypted or otherwise I guarantee that within six months it gets pulled through the political pressure it would generate - so all the arguments about laws are irrelevant in my eyes. Again, the main problem that you continue to skip over is:

1. who would support / advocate the policy "hardcore sex on T.V" (politicians, media figures)? you would find 100 people against for every 1 in support

2. Would the policy be popular (general public)? I would say at least 75% against, Daily Mail would have a field day, defo not a vote winner

One final thing and I hope I don't get banned for saying this as I do enjoy reading posts on the forum from time to time. There is talk in the previous contribution of the poster getting physically upset by the actions of Ofcom. Now I can understand getting upset at a football team, an individual person, the council, etc, but a regulatory body! Getting upset over Ofcom's regulation of television - that is sad - i urge you to pursue other interests as no-one can tell me that the concept of "Ofcoms regulation of television"
is a worthwhile / rewarding pursuit.

c1154901 thanks for posting well thought out points, even if I disagree with them. Within limits this kind of debate helps people think through what they really believe and why, rather than taking it for granted that everyone agrees.

However -
According to Mediawatch - the anti-porn campaign group - 40% of adult males access porn on the internet.

That's more than watch Eastenders, attend Church and physically go to football matches COMBINED.

Porn is a normal healthy male interest, and frankly takes the pressure out of many relationships where the woman's sex drive is set muxh lower. The alternative, that the Daily Mail will never admit, is a massive jump in the divorce rate, alcoholism and a return to Victorian levels of prostitution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for any man whose sex drive is happy in his relationship, it's just that many are not, and do not want to enter into a physical relationship with another woman.

And then there are the disabled who have little realistic chance of entering into a physical relationship, the elderly and widowers.

Plus single men.

The "Daily Main Problem" is that very few men dare tell their wives that they leave them unsatisfied, and while most women under 50 accept porn as a normal part of modern society, few want to admit that their man needs it.

Of course the irony is that many male Daily Mail readers access porn, and history shows that MPs have a high infidelity rate.

Also there is no law against R18 on TV, it's just a decision made by an Ofcom committee behind closed doors.

Re "You are incorrect when you suggest "why shouldn't it be shown" as surely the person attempting to change the law must demonstrate a need for the law. Therein lies the problem"
~ can't help but disagree again. In a free society it is up to the person banning something to make the case, not the other way round.

Another problem is that the more porn is banned from official channels, the more people will use totally unregulated ones. There is nasty stuff out there mixed in with the UK-legal-R18 stuff, and if people are left unsatisfied they will access it. I'd prefer my neighbours got their jollies from somewhere that does not have nasty stuff right next to the acceptable stuff. What is your preference?

(30-06-2010 00:07 )c1154901 Wrote:  If you think that the only reason why hardcore porn is not on tv is because of pressure from the sex shop / adult industry (such a renowned and powerful lobbying group!!), quite frankly you and your friends are deluded

I didn't say that nor I think did anyone else. The AITA put forward a business case to keep R18 off TV - I know I read it. As I understand it Ofcom are required by law to give due consideration to TV businesses and the wider effects on society and other businesses. What weight Ofcom gave to the AITA submission is probably known only to Ofcom.

Quote:You also continue to bring up the Law which you claim isn't being properly regulated by Ofcom, again complete nonsense, if your argument had any substance Ofcom could be challenged legally, which hasn't happened

Where's the law that says Ofcom can ban R18?

As for the other issue. Perhaps no one has looked at the law closely enough? I've highlighted several discrepancies between what the law requires of Ofcom and what Ofcom's policy is according to their Code. The TV stations haven't challenged Ofcom in Court as yet, and whether they decide to mount a challenge is entirely their decision. The only pressure viewers could bring to bear is to stop paying for the services that fail to deliver what they want. Clearly, there are enough customers so it is in the TV station's interests not to rock the boat (there's no guarantee they could win a court case, I base my 'verdict' on the BBFC's experience on the same issue with the same evidence).

Quote:If hardcore sex was shown on Sky encrypted or otherwise I guarantee that within six months it gets pulled through the political pressure it would generate - so all the arguments about laws are irrelevant in my eyes.

I see. Have Ofcom got a deal on crystal balls? Upon what evidence do you predict such a 'guaranteed' outcome? Do you want to stick some money where your mouth is? - I'll put 35% of my home up against this 'guarantee' of yours (circa £40,000 depending on the market). Exactly how far away from hardcore sex is the current output? Would the extra bit make any difference to those that don't watch it? No one complained when TAC and PB showed R18 rated material at around midnight for around two weeks about 6 years ago. The ITC/BSC surveys from 1996 to 2002 all showed a 75% majority of a random sample of 1000 people thought that "those who pay more to see particularly sexually explicit material should be allowed to do so". Where's this political pressure you speak of? The only democratic majority I see is for liberalisation and pro choice.

Quote:Again, the main problem that you continue to skip over is:

1. who would support / advocate the policy "hardcore sex on T.V" (politicians, media figures)? you would find 100 people against for every 1 in support

As already stated, the FACTS from the ITC/BSC annual surveys show 3 out of every 4 people think particularly explicit sex should be available on TV...and they have done for years. Of course we may argue over semantics but I don't think many people would confuse particularly sexually explicit material (perhaps known as 'hardcore' or R18-'sex works') with particularly inexplicit material (perhaps known as 'softcore' or 18-'sex works').

Quote:2. Would the policy be popular (general public)? I would say at least 75% against, Daily Mail would have a field day, defo not a vote winner

I don't really care what you'd say. I know what 75% of the public think from the ITC/BSC surveys from 1996 to 2002. And according to that data you're wrong. I've no doubt some Dail Mail readers fall in that 22% minority the ITC/BSC surveys revealed that don't think people should be able to choose to watch porn on TV.

Quote:One final thing and I hope I don't get banned for saying this as I do enjoy reading posts on the forum from time to time. There is talk in the previous contribution of the poster getting physically upset by the actions of Ofcom. Now I can understand getting upset at a football team, an individual person, the council, etc, but a regulatory body! Getting upset over Ofcom's regulation of television - that is sad - i urge you to pursue other interests as no-one can tell me that the concept of "Ofcoms regulation of television"
is a worthwhile / rewarding pursuit.

I think you're referring to moi. And I doubt anyone would ban you for saying anything of the sort. Oddly enough, I don't get upset by football, football teams or any type of sporting activities. I'd dare say there were those that thought the French Resistance wasn't a worthwhile pursuit. Ofcom didn't make me physically sick, that would be ridiculous. No, I lost some sleep while putting together a rather scathing examination of what the law means to me and what Ofcom have decided it means to them. Let's just say you do it to yourself - my passion, my torment. Some choose to climb mountains. Many die trying to accomplish near impossible feats. Others drive themselves or sometimes their loved ones round the bend. Those that stand the course however, when they make it to the goal they are at least lauded for their strength and determination. If you're going to fight and possibly die or end up in a looney bin then I think you should be fighting for something you believe in. As a writer, composer, designer and software engineer (a 'techno-artist' of sorts), I value Freedom of Expression and simply loathe censorship - always have since as long as I can remember. I'm doing what I believe is right according to my values and interests and the principles of Freedom and Democracy.

Can I ask what it is you are fighting for, or are you just being argumentative and playing the devil's advocate?

I don't know where you get your ideas from but let me quote Ofcom and show you how very wrong you are:

John Glover (Ofcom) Wrote:Of course, I understand that this is a controversial area, and that you and others may disagree with Ofcom’s conclusions. However, I should point out that Ofcom did not conclude that “R18” was unsuitable for transmission per se – only that it could not be adequately protected from access by children under current systems.

Ofcom stated several times that they have no reason to ban R18 simply because it contains 'hardcore' sex. It is banned because Ofcom don't believe they can fulfil their remit to protect children from it. What Ofcom have never done is prove why children need protecting from something which by law is harmless to children.

(30-06-2010 00:07 )c1154901 Wrote:  If you think that the only reason why hardcore porn is not on tv is because of pressure from the sex shop / adult industry (such a renowned and powerful lobbying group!!), quite frankly you and your friends are deluded

I did not say that the only reason R18 is not on encrypted TV is because of "pressure" from the A.I.T.A.
What I said was: "The biggest critics of allowing R18 on encrypted subscription TV are the A.I.T.A"

Take a look at the Ofcom website. Who makes the claim that R18 on TV would be harmful to children?
The religious groups?: No.
Tory Backbenchers?: No.
Daily Mail readers?: No.
The Adult Industry Trade Association?: Yes.


Here are their views made to Ofcom:

"Dear xxxxxxxxxx
I am writing on behalf of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), of which I am a committee member. AITA was set up in May 03 to ensure that the interests of the adult industry are adequately represented to the Government, regulators and the media. We provide services to members, in particular information on relevant legislation and regulations; we promote the adult industry generally and seek to raise standards and perceptions.

In short, we are seeking fairer trading conditions for adult retailers.

AITA has examined OFCOM's consultation paper and paid particular interest to the section outlining the possibility of R18 movies being broadcast in UK. The committee is wholeheartedly against hardcore being broadcast on television, even through encrypted services. The Video Recordings Act (1984) restricts the sale of R18 movies from licensed sex shops ONLY and the transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18. If OFCOM were to allow R18 movies to be broadcast directly into homes with only a PIN code safeguard, we feel that this would not provide adequate protection for minors. Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops."

Full PDF version here.

Quote:You also continue to bring up the Law which you claim isn't being properly regulated by Ofcom, again complete nonsense, if your argument had any substance Ofcom could be challenged legally, which hasn't happened

Challenged legally by who exactly?
Which Adult satellite broadcaster has wanted to mount a legal challenge?: None.

As you are aware, Portland TV (TVX) received the record fine for an adult satellite broadcaster, (for briefly showing hardcore), after a complaint made to Ofcom by Benelux Ltd (Playboy TV).

The previous holder of the record fine for an adult satellite broadcaster, (for briefly showing hardcore), was held by Benelux Ltd (Playboy TV), after a complaint made to Ofcom by Portland TV (TVX).

The adult satellite broadcasters are the ones who are complaining against hardcore being shown on TV, not Daily Mail readers, Tory Backbenchers or the religious groups.

I'm sure you are aware of who put up the cash to bring about the legal challenge which in turn allowed Hardcore on video...

(Then) Home Secretary Jack Straw defeated in court in about 2 minutes by this man's lawyers:



Incidentally, he proclaims that a hardcore video or DVD sold through a Sex Shop is perfectly safe, but hardcore on an encrypted Satellite or Cable channel is a danger to children. Perhaps that is because he owns the UK's biggest chain of sex shops.... (And yes, that is his mansion in the background.)

Quote:If hardcore sex was shown on Sky encrypted or otherwise I guarantee that within six months it gets pulled through the political pressure it would generate - so all the arguments about laws are irrelevant in my eyes.

What political pressure caused R18 sold in sex shops to get pulled?
None. Because it became legal. A court case was won.

Quote:Again, the main problem that you continue to skip over is:

1. who would support / advocate the policy "hardcore sex on T.V" (politicians, media figures)? you would find 100 people against for every 1 in support

2. Would the policy be popular (general public)? I would say at least 75% against, Daily Mail would have a field day, defo not a vote winner

Your answer

I will say it once again:

Hardcore is not on TV because the adult broadcasters do not want it.

(30-06-2010 00:07 )c1154901 Wrote:  - that is sad - i urge you to pursue other interests as no-one can tell me that the concept of "Ofcoms regulation of television"
is a worthwhile / rewarding pursuit.

Give me a five minute "Trolley Dash" in your licensed Sex Shop and I promise to never speak about the absence of Hardcore on television again.

what i find hilarious about this is, when i was 7-8 years old i could quite easily find my dads mags, legally bought at the sven shop either under his bed or in his draws.
today i keep my porn in a bedroom draw also as do many fathers, so if my kid was to have a mind to watch a dvd he quite easily could...

what he can't do is watch hardcore porn on tv even if it were broadcast as i have pin protected all the adult channels and deleted them from his freeview then parental locked it. he doesn't know the pin because 4 failed attempts locks the box and i get to know that he's been looking.

the upshot is that pin protection is good enough. its adults being given the opportunity to be parent's thats needed. ofcom imply with every fine that i and every other parent are failing to protect our kids. when in actual fact if they did allow freer access to R18 material most parents would be more inclined to buy pin protected equipment and use it, but because its not they don't bother...

i find it strange that, that ofcom rather he watch sum1 get shot in the face with a 45 at 15years old, over a girl taking a mouthful of man meat at 18. but, id much rather he knock 1 out over a babe on tv, than go knock up the girl next door...

basically what ofcom are saying is by there law no one can own a car because some people may occasionally drink. (a law that does not exist by the way lol).
but the actual law say's that you can all own a car, but you are not allowed to drink and drive.