is not even as strong as you can find elsewhere on the Sky platform?
The absurdity of the situation was there for all to see on Friday night. At around midnight, there were 6 soft porn films concurrently running amongst the 320 channels on Sky Movies. Between them the various films showed full frontal nudity, scenes of sex between male and female and female and female, and scenes of simulated oral sex that were not brief in nature.
These films are quite obviously made for the purpose of sexual arousal and yet if any of the babe channels had shown ful frontal nudity for any length of time - over the same period as these other films were airing similar content, they would have been facing a large fine. This is despite being contained in an adult section which clearly sends the message, "we show scenes of sexual activity designed for sexual arousal" as opposed to the message, "we show films" and therefore become that much easier to avoid for anyone who finds such material offensive.
The first thing that struck me about this was that there is quite obviously a large market for this kind of stuff. The various movie channels are obviously not afraid of their advertisers being put off by the kind of films being shown at that time of night.
The second thing that struck me yet again was just how absurd the situation actually is. We are at a stage where one of the channels is currently facing the prospect of tougher sanctions for showing various scenes that are exceeded frequently by the movie channels. Every single argument that Ofcom uses against the babe channels falls flat on its face whilst such contradictory and biased action is allowed to continue. The whole 'minors may be watching', 'harm and offence' and 'justified by context' become completely redundant.
So, Ofcom would seem to face a choice. Either they employ the same draconian measures they do for the babe channels to every channel across the board, or they allow the babe channels to operate on a level playing field.
And as I've said before, they are not stupid enough to consider the first option, knowing full well that would be likely to inflame far more people about the imposition of censorship on them than Ofcom care to deal with. Once that happens, and Ofcom will be fully aware of this, their comfortable gravy train will grind to a shuddering halt.
One has to wonder why these channel continue to accept such blatant prejudices.
Why limit the question to sex? There is nothing in law singling out sex as specially offensive. What about some of the American style religious broadcasts? Or violent films - war, crime, horror? Generally Accepted Standard could apply to gambling or the huge amount of advertising too. H-H
ReplyDeleteGood point HH. I never have undserstood this attitude that says violence is okay, sex/nudity is not. It baffles me beyond words that Ofcom and the like think sex and nudity are potentially more harmful than torture porn and general violence.
ReplyDeleteHave none of you considered the fact that the shows themselves may well not want to be too explicit? What would be the point in having more explicit photos etc available on their subscription websites if you could see it for free on the tv?
ReplyDeleteOh yes anon, I can see that.
ReplyDeleteOfcom: "We're looking after your website earning potential by fining you £50,000 for showing on TV what should only be seen on your website."
Channel: "Oh yes, silly us, it will certainly help our profitability to hand over 2000 £25 monthly subscription payments in fines."
Ofcom: "And don't forget we don't like you advertising your website on TV if it contains material that we believe cannot be shown on TV."
Channel: "Oh, so how is that supposed to help us get the subscribers we need to make a profit by keeping sexy stuff on the website and away from TV?"
Ofcom: "We don't know and we don't care. We hate what you do and if we could we'd shut your business, your website and TV channel down."