See also Religious Watch Forum

 IanG    [27066.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 07:17]
phantom, goods points as ever.

If it is indeed necessary to state when an image has been touched-up then, surely, it should be necessary to stamp `This face is not real` across the forehead of every woman wearing foundation, rouge, eyeshadow, lipstick, mascara, eyebrow pencil and/or those using nip-tuck surgery, botox, collagen injections, silicon implants etc. etc. etc.? Or doesn`t the use of such enhancement techniques and/or concealment of defects create the sort of impressions/images that count toward the `degradation` of, and supposed `harm` to, women?

As far as I know, people have been inventing and reinventing the beauty `ideal` since the Ancient Egyptians first highlighted their eyes and braided their hair if, indeed, the practice hasn`t been on-going since Homo Sapiens evolved over 250,000 years ago...?!

Michalangelo`s David is a good example of how human beings simply don`t conform to the aesthetic `ideal` most moronic fucks `believe` people `should` look like.

We`re designed to survive in a harsh and wild world, not to look pretty on the front of fake beauty magazines. That`s the truth of it. And as ever, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the tip of a virtual airbrush or glossy ad.

We should probably ban ALL cosmetics and supposed anti-aging products - if indeed, the fake face of beauty is so damaging to the physical, psychological and moral wellbeing, and/or social standing, of impressionable females.

Of course, real men and real women don`t give a flying fuck what happens to the shallow and weak-willed. FUCK `EM ALL I say. If they`re not smart enough to know shit from shinenola then the human race, indeed, the entire WORLD probably doesn`t need them, their surgeons, their chemicals and face paint.

On a similar note - did anyone see the suntan lotion that`s being advertised with "7 out of 10 women say they envy friends that tan easily"? Envy is now a blatant ad man`s tool - not that `keeping up appearances` or `being one step ahead` hasn`t always been in their bag of tricks...

 sergio    [27065.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:24]
I could argue that all `images` are altered to one extent or another.
In the digital domain the light that enters the camera and captured by the sensor is not in a pure 1 to 1 relationship.

Even an ordinary old fashioned gelatine print has been `altered`.

 IanG    [27064.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:11]
"We considered that the image and text were likely to be seen to objectify and degrade women by linking their physical attributes to the advertiser`s door and window products, and concluded that the image, in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by a general audience, and which bore no relevance to the advertised products, had the potential to cause serious offence to some consumers."

Whatever happened to NO INTERFERENCE as GUARANTEED BY LAW?

Fuck the easily offended. They stifle progress, freedom and creativity. They are backward, mindless, idiots, who deserve no special treatment save perhaps for the psychiatric kind.

 phantom    [27063.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:05]
emark {270614}
`Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable....`

Sorry, but must vehemently disagree here.
It`s a matter of basic freedom of expression.
There needs to be a reason to curtail or regulate it.

Also, consider that photography is an art form and be it an advert or not.

Are you aware that Michelangelo`s statue of David is actually altered anatomically to be more aesthetically pleasing?
(elongated arms and hands. so a sort of rennaissance photoshop job)

Some folks indeed find the idea of curtailing adverts with airbrushing acceptable, as they believe that the exposure to unrealistically beautiful models can do `harm`, particularly to young women.

But what about posters of Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo, or Marylin?
All retouched.

But the inherent problem is that the whole idea of this is based on the fact that pictures to harm.

After all, if you say it`s not unreasonable to demand a label on an image on which a model has had her cold sore removed, then I must ask, why is it acceptable?
Why is necessary?

For the minister to demand this law implies a necessity.
And in her statements she hasn`t merely implied.
It`s all about `harm to women`.

So to accept the law is to accept the premise that pictures cause harm to people.

You see, having computer manufacturers state that footage is not actual game play footage is to prevent being misleading about the product.
That is understandable.

But having to state that a pic has been photoshopped (and yes, they all are!) would solely be to `prevent harm to women`.

Thus to accept the law means to accept that the sight of pics can do you harm.

I`m sorry. But what harm?

It`s the old feminist notion of not liking beautiful nubiles up on posters.
(They all say it`s due to exploitation. We all know it`s that they`re jealous.)

The fact is that photography is much less forgiving than film. The human eye focuses in on imperfections on a still image, whereas it hasn`t the time in moving pictures.

The most standard retouching on a photograph is under the eyes.
Puffy eye bags and grey lines. i.e. signs of tiredness.
A model can be gorgeous. If she`s tired, she`s tired.
So it`s simply retouched afterwards.

Why oh why is this supposed to be harmful to other women?

The simple fact is it is not harmful at all.

But the minister`s embracing of this idea (grown on Harman`s midden) is an ill omen.

With people still in government firmly wedded to the idea that pictures do harm, Melonfarmers is going to be kept busy for some time to come.

If they`re claiming that porn (extreme or otherwise) is `harmful` without a single scrap of evidence it`s bad enough. But once they say a mere picture of a woman without grey lines under her eyes is dangerous.

Well, that`s worrying. It suggests someone is taking a long run up....

 sergio    [27062.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 03:52]
`The Commission was satisfied that the public interest argument advanced by the newspaper - to the effect that the ongoing design of websites connected to the sex industry was incompatible with the complainant`s role in a prominent local community website - justified the employment of such mild subterfuge in this case.`

What? Who says "sex industry" website design is `incompatible` with `local community website` design?

What about `sickening` Hull Daily Mail content?

 emark    [27061.   Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 14:34]
Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable (and seems similar to other fair advertising things, like computer game adverts that have to say if the footage isn`t from the game); calling them "health warnings" on the other hand does indeed convey the idea that images are harmful. But it`s not clear to me the wording would actually be warning people about health, or if that`s a term made up by the media?

I think the idea is pointless is nothing else - it won`t censor anyone, but AIUI almost all images are retouched in some way, so it`ll be the new "This may contain nuts"...

 malcom    [27060.   Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 12:44]
I said in an earlier post that I could not find the climax3 channel HC movies.....Well tried again and this time I have found them.....It`s been said many times before but it just don`t make sense that subscribers can see hard core on the computer but not on the TV channel itself........

Only difference is the viewing card number is a longer pin number than the TV one..........I wonder what excuse Ofcom would have if the TV PIN number was as many digits as the card number........

PS. I note that Playboy have licence for two more channels..

Adult 3 and Adult 4.........I read somewhere that they are chat phone line channels. Possibly along the lines of SXTV but girls only........

 phantom    [27059.   Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 11:30]
Hello everyone,
Been a while since I`ve been on here.

Anyone read the Sunday Times?
Seems the `Liberal` Democrat Equalities Minister is very much enamoured with Harriet Harman`s project to have health warnings on photoshopped pictures.

No point trying to link to an article as The Times has gone into pay-to-view.

But clearly the new government (especially the left wingers among the LibDems it would seem) are still quite in love with the principal of the `harmfulness` of images.

So it seems there will still be plenty of moves (not least those pet projects left behind by Harman) in order to `protect` us all from coming to harm by seeing things we ought not.

 malcom    [27058.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 12:15]
So the government has no plans to relax regulations on terrestrial broadcasts..........He could have said no plans to relax regulation on tv broadcasts but he did not.......This could mean they have plans to relax none terrestrial regulations or am I reading too much into it in the name of hope.......:)

 malcom    [27057.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 11:02]
re:rainman........Hi....Yep you chose the wrong channels......Just one nights viewing of the playboy 6 could yield the same let down results......However there are some series that are pushing the code to the limit and byond......However they are still very much soft core but with some treats on an occasional basis.....They do advertise sexier and filthier than ever and have to admit they are telling the truth but there is not near enough of it.....So don`t be tempted to buy......

You have watched TVX and red hot which means I assume you are registered......I note on red hot mums channel they have started a live show phone in series girl-n-girl about 4 night a week from midnight till 2am.....

Now...There synopsis claims it is girl n girl explicit and uncensored. Yes I know heard it all before......However in view of explicit material appearing on the set of channel I currentl have it could be that red hot are moving up a notch.....I am not registerd so it would cost me a fiver plus £12 registration fee..Perhaps you may feel like risking a fiver to see if their claim are anywhere near true for that live phone in show........I suspect thay may actually censor via the banner with the phone numbers hiding some explicit action......

I still feel something has changed with regard to the adult channels and there defiance really of the strict code regulations....They must know thay can get away with stronger material that falls short of true hard core but goes much further than ever previously seen on those channels.....

 IanG    [27056.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 07:20]
Pathetic!

"Jeremy Hunt

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Our real concern on this side of the House is about the sexualisation of young people in particular; we take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television. I do not want to pretend that there is an easy answer, because traditional linear viewing, which allowed the watershed, made it possible to be much more definite about what would be seen by children and what would be seen by adults. To answer the hon. Gentleman`s question directly, we have no plans to relax any of the taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts."

What EXACTLY is `the sexualisation of young people`? And what evidence is there that this is something that MUST be prevented or indeed, is caused by the media and thus can be prevented via censorship of the media? Or is this perhaps just more mythological claptrap and spin designed to ensure minority `religious values` can be imposed upon the majority of non-religious citizens in direct violation of human rights?

I don`t think `traditional linear viewing` has existed since the mass take-up of the home VCR, has it Mr Hunt? For more than a decade I`ve been using my VCR to allow me to view late night `adult` TV at a more respectable and reasonable time.

And do I detect a hint that `taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts` don`t, won`t or shouldn`t apply to non-terrestrial broadcasts? I`m sure the Comms Act states the measure should be for `harm and offence` rather than `taste and decency`, although as many have realised, if `harm and offence` is misinterpreted to mean `harm and/or offence` then, `offence` alone serves to censure TV on grounds of puerile, rights-abusing ideas of `taste and decency`.

And if it is really so that you "take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television", why doesn`t Ofcom allow adults to view what adults, like many here, really want to view on TV?

In all I see nowt but the usual double-speak typical of religiously corrupted British governments and the double-standards their quangos, like Ofcom and the BBFC before them, have been allowed to implement without any proper legal oversight and consideration for our legally enshrined rights and freedoms.

 IanG    [27055.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 05:18]
Harvey/pbr, he didn`t `just` commit rape after viewing this `violent porn`...according to the police and his computer history he also viewed the material again immediately after the rape - i.e. it seems committing actual rape itself wasn`t as good as the `real`, (no doubt poorly) acted and idealised pornographic rape fantasy material.

The bloke is obviously fixated with the idealised rape porn fantasy. We don`t know how long he`s been viewing such material but, it seems he eventually thought trying it for real himself might satiate his obviously inherant need for sexual domination of a victim.

I think we`re all pretty tired of hearing the same old "porn made him do it" bullshit. Porn cannot turn ordinary folks into psychotic loonies. You have to be a psychotic loon to allow (i.e. WANT) any entertainment media to convince yourself "this is what I want to do" before enacting the scenarios on real victims. It`s a pathology - a mental illness - inherant in this man. I`ve watched loads of rape fantasies over the years and never once have I thought `this is real` and `this is something I want to do` or, indeed, ever wanted to do to anyone irrespective of viewing such sexually `violent` porn.

We need only dig up the `violent porn` research from the 1980s and the BBFC`s own `Media Effects` report, to convince EVERYONE that any supposed causal relationship between porn use/users and sexual assault is NON-EXISTENT. Indeed, WE ALL KNOW the opposite effect is the rule and, that this man is the exception that PROVES the rule.

Anyone who is not distressed at the sight of any type of real violence (sexual or not) is clearly not empathising with the victim. An inability to empathise with others is a clear sign (if not the definition) of psychopathy and sociopathic tendancies. Being able to distinguish real violence from fake movie violence is also key to determining if one is sane or not. We can all enjoy the fake violence of Tom and Jerry, we can all thrill at the Swartzenegger slaughter fests, BECAUSE we know no one is really being harmed. ALL the `rape porn` I`ve ever seen is all clearly fake and, quite honestly, it leaves me cold, like fake orgasms in consensual porn (or the bedroom!).

We know the moralising fuckwits are just that - mindless aresholes that need to good kick in the reason department. They`re the ones that allowed the creation of porn in the first instance - indeed, they gave it its name, defined it, created a market for it and have cried and moaned about it ever since. It`s a lesson in evolution and environmental pressures...but that`s another story. No prohibition in the entire history of mankind has EVER resulted in anything BUT the OPPOSITE of what it was believed it would deliver/cure/fix/resolve. Morons rule the world and the rest of us just have to muddle on the best we can.

There are no quick fixes - there are NO FIXES full stop. We`re not born equal, we`re all unique because Nature is still fucking about trying to find the next best thing to exploit the shite we allow ourselves to believe is `right` for `our` society. Of course, the more restrictive we allow our society to become the more extreme the solutions to bypass those restrictions become - that`s life, evolution itself, in action.

SHIT HAPPENS and there`s fuck all we can or should do to stop it - end of.

The PROOF is that people were being violently raped and abused many thousands of years before violent porn existed and, this trend/trait has actually DECLINED or at least CEASED INCREASING as porn has become more widely available. That`s the rule and, this man is clearly one of Nature`s exceptions.

 pbr    [27054.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 00:15]
Actually... I`m inclined towards Harvey`s question... it does seem odd that "violent rape porn" wouldn`t be added to the charges.. I mean... surely, it`s open and shut... you have a violent rapist who committed an appalling crime after he watched "violent rape porn"... I mean if you`re `common sense` isn`t tingling, you must be with *them*... so, frankly, you can`t not get a conviction...

I would tend to discount the possibility of there being a neutral reason for there not being an extreme porn charge... I would imagine that the prosecutors weren`t confident that they could get a conviction on it... and that that would undermine, in however small a way, their arguments about the rape -and- the reporting of the story afterwards... if you put it and failed to secure a conviction that`s a shitstorm -but- you also failed, if you choose not to put it because the porn was about rape but wasn`t "extreme" then that`s a problem for the politicos, you were, afterall, only applying the law as written...

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27053.   Posted 26-Jul-2010 Mon 10:23]
Harvey,

I think the 11 years + indefinite option is more or less job`s done as far the authorities are concerned. Spicing up the rap with a DPA charge would be a bit superfluous in this case.

So probably only down to the press to whip up a fuss but no real signs of much interest so far, perhaps not out of the ordinary enough for that. So I guess we wont hear much more about this one, as most will agree that the outcome is about right.

 Harvey    [27052.   Posted 26-Jul-2010 Mon 08:39]
Rapist struck after viewing violent porn

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/8290111.Rapist_struck_after_viewing_violent_porn/

Wasn`t the DPA supposed to stop people being raped as a result of the rapist watching videos? The law has been in place for over a year yet somehow rapists are still going around attacking people. How is this possible? Doesn`t the rapist know that merely possessing a video could land him in jail?

BTW, no mention of any charges for possession of the video, so was this "violent rape" porn of such a type to be caught by the DPA? Get ready for cries demanding that the police couldn`t prosecute him because of a "loophole" in the law.

Also BTW, he received an indeterminate sentence for the rapes, with a minimum tariff of 11 years, which in my view is absolutely right.

 IanG    [27051.   Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 06:59]
I was just responding to a post over at Babeshows forum and it dawned on me that the only place `pornography` is named as a possible risk to minors is in the TVWF Directive. As I`m sure we`re all aware, Ofcom stated on several occasions that they had no evidence or reason to believe they could ban or unnecessairly restrict access to R18-type porn under the terms of the TVWF Directive. However, in a leap of irrationality, immediately after making these `porn is safe` declarations, Ofcom then proceeded to apply the TVWF definitions of `potentially dangerous material` (i.e. porn and gratuitous violence) to the Comms Act requirement to protect the `under eighteens` and other `vulnerable people` and instigated their illegal ban of R18-type material.

(see 1st Aug 2006 entry here : http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm)

Cherry picking censors is what Ofcom are. Liars and cheats is what I`ve always said they were. Untrustworthy, duplicitous, hypocritical lying bastards is what they`ve proven themselves to be over the past five years.

 pbr    [27050.   Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 04:24]
Re: Blame Alert...

Oh dear... how committed will the coalition remain to an agenda of rolling back neo-labour`s carpet of new offences in the face of a couple more stories like that...

You know... on a matter of faniciful claims... I remember the child protection industry reps and the police claiming hentai was found mixed in on some computers with child abuse images... but... with only one exception (I`ve referred to it previously, where the Court wrongly concluded that 3D CGI looked real enough to qualify as pseudo-photographs... I repeat you must live a nightmareish existence if you could mistake cheaply done early 2000 3D CGI as a depiction of reality...) I`ve never seen it reported... I wonder if should, against all odds, the DDA make it into the Great Repeal Act, we might expect an avelanche of revealations on where H turns up...


Post Script:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/25/oz_senate_censors_cartoon/

"Meanwhile, under the heading “you couldn’t make it up”, the Australian Government has now censored some 90 per cent of a document released under Australia’s FOI laws on the controversial topic of what data ISP’s are going to be asked to keep when snooping on their customers. The reason for keeping the answer under wraps? Apparently there were fears that the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate"."

...wow...

 sergio    [27049.   Posted 24-Jul-2010 Sat 07:58]
It`s a great `human interest` story, but how many people has Bulger killed?

The greatest killer of children in the UK is ... cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10730095

But that item doesn`t even cover it. I heard about it when one of the reports author`s was interviewed on tv.
Seems like child porn is more sexy than mass murder by FORD.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27048.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 15:42]
Re R18 adverts on TV.

It will be interesting to see how the softcore channels incorporate R18 advertising into their marketing bullshit. All this bollox about being the `strongest available` etc will somehow have to acknowledge that it is not actually the real stuff.

Intuitively marketing along the lines of `you`ve seen the softcore version, now buy the hardcore version` seems to be a quite a good opportunity. But is does rather mean owning up to the fact that the channel itself, is most definitely soft.

 rainman    [27047.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:58]
Hi Malcom, just one night of TVX and Red HOT TV, all terrible rubbish and if taken out of the "adult theme context" would receive a BBFC 15 certificate. I would recommend any member of the public, browsing through Melon Farmers, to stay well clear of these channels as you will be majorly disappointed!

Ian - very true, it is much easier for a kid to access h/c porn on the internet than it would ever be to view on TV, for one glaring obvious reason, the parents have subscribe first! Even if the kid could purchase adult programmes, they`d know full it would appear on their parents credit card bill, why go through all the hassle when you can watch h/c porn on the internet at any convenient time!

One final point, I see that R18 websites can advertise their addresses on encrypted adult channels from the 1st September 2010. Wasn`t this a big a no, no by Ofcom whom is complete denial that UK adults want to view this type of disgusting filth? Ofcom must be seething that the new boys, the ASA have allow R18 adverts. Ofcom will see that it is an attempt to legitimise R18 material as de facto standard, believe it not Ofcom it is, open your eyes and see the ratio of R18 works to Adult works 18 certificates issued by the BBFC each month and it is a no brainer!!

 malcom    [27046.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:11]
re- IanG said.....

rainman, long time indeed! I think you missed the trick re adult channels...your TV subscription gets you `free` access the real stuff on their respective websites. Oh but of course, Ofcom don`t allow them to tell you that...! What`s that bit about "no interference"...?


Yes..Thats what I was informed. However I cannot find any free HC on the supposed web site.......Just free samples if you download the files which I will not do.......I thought it was streaming HC video that was available.......If so I wish someone could decipher what links to get at it on climax3.....

 malcom    [27045.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:04]
re-rainman....

A few weeks ago i took the plunge out of curiosity to subscribe to the playboy set of channels.......No minimum contract. In practice though due to a months notice being required two months is what you have to pay for mimimum......I was intending to cancell by now but am still entertained by some of the harder soft on at present.....So I am still paying for the moment

You say you found the same old rubbish......Me too over the last three evenings and this evening does not look any rosier either....

Having said that there are series on those channels being aired that are quite good. Its down to trial and error and sitting through some gunge however....There is a series with the word "daughter" in the title look out for them.......There was a night on one channel with "spunk" in the title with sevearl different episodes through the night......And that is what was shown...

I don`t recommend anyone take these channels as a serious alternative to HC.....However i am impressed and encouraged by just how far they are pushing the envelope compared to 5 yaes ago......

I don`t know if you joined just for a nights viewing or monthly......You do need several nights or longer to sort out the good from the rubbish....

 IanG    [27044.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 08:07]
rainman, long time indeed! I think you missed the trick re adult channels...your TV subscription gets you `free` access the real stuff on their respective websites. Oh but of course, Ofcom don`t allow them to tell you that...! What`s that bit about "no interference"...?

Now, of course, unless your PC is totally secure, your kids could be accessing everything Ofcom claim to be protecting them from on TV via the net (like kids aren`t already able to access heaps of truly free porn anyway...).

Ofcom`s `rules` have made the whole situtation far less secure than it ever was. And the whole "PIN isn`t secure" argument is tosh anyway.

Can a child actually access PPV channels without a parent/guardian noticing a porn channel charge appearing on their their bill? Anyone remember Mr Jacqui Smith deciding to ask the taxpayer to pay his TV porn expenses for instance...?

And aren`t parents actually going to be at home and able to supervise their children`s viewing if `adult` material is not broadcast before 10pm? The watershed has functioned correctly for over 40 years. Ofcom seem to be under the impression that no one at all is at home supervising children when `adult` material is being broadcast. And let`s not pull any punches - if R18 is not suitable for kids then the `tellycore` near-R18 stuff on TV isn`t either, yet Ofcom`s `research` claims 50% of kids KNOW the PIN and KNOW how to access this 18+ `adult sex material`.

Ofcom are a very, very bad joke. They`re clearly insane. They`re clearly biased. They`re clearly unfit to regulate anything.

 rainman    [27043.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 07:30]
Long time since I have last posted. I have read with interest what Malcolm has posted in regards to the Ofcom regulated adult channels over past few weeks, thus decided to take the plunge and have a look at what was being aired. I must have chosen the wrong channel group, as there are two major players TVX channels and Playboy channels, because what was broadcast was bloody awful...they still have a habit of not even showing full nudity. Anyway better luck next time!!!

Does anyone know when Ofcom will review their broadcasting code, as my understanding is R18 is only prohibited due insufficient PIN security?
Surely if a broadcaster can supply a method of a more secure system for parental controls they can ask Ofcom for a review. Incidentally, doesn`t BT Vision have the most secure parent controls at present?

 IanG    [27042.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 06:38]
malcom, indeed, if porn and sexually explicit material of any kind were dangerous to children then, as many here have stated for many years, the evidence of this harm would/should by now be incontrovertable and overwhelming - SO WHERE IS IT?

HOW could the High Court rule, based on the available evidence from over 30 child wellfare experts around the world, that risk of harm to children from R18-type porn is insignificant if Ofcom`s, the government`s or the chruch`s BASELESS BELIEFS about its supposed effects are even remotely correct?

For more than 40 years the rest of the free world has managed to watch and broadcast porn without any major concern over the safety of kids BECAUSE there`s no evidence of it causing harm to kids.

The pathetic, illegal, unfounded bullshit used to impose rights-abusing censorship in this country is utterly sickening. IT IS TIME IT CEASED. IT IS LONG PAST ITS CREDIBILITY. IT IS NOW HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF THE FIRST ORDER...AND ALL BALTANTLY AND PROVEABLY SO.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

 malcom    [27041.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 05:50]
re-simcha......

In the name of education recent past sex type education shows have shown much stronger explicit material than you have recently observed.

The sort of stuff being shown on the soft adult channels now blows Ofcoms code out of the water even though it is not full blown HC......Past couple of nights have been pretty tame however....

Ofcoms excuse for continuing a R18 ban is truly pathetic.....As you say youngsters today by one means or another see more porn than porn enthusiasts do.....About time Ofcom and the Government ministers that pull their strings grew up......

 IanG    [27040.   Posted 22-Jul-2010 Thu 10:33]
simcha, surely you know the difference between sexually explicit material for the puposes of sex education and sexually explicit material for the purposes of sexual arousal? Perhaps not though? I think you`d better ask Ofcom for a full explanation.

You see ACCORDING TO OFCOM (see clause 1.18 of their stakeholder section 1 guidance) showing offensive vaginas on screen for educational purposes is "justified by the context", whereas, showing offensive vaginas on screen that might make blokes horny will NEVER be "justified by the context".

Vaginas are offensive aren`t they? If not then I reckon Ofcom are for the high jump (and may be soon...).

It`s a little thing called DISCRIMINATION on the grounds of SEXUALITY and, ITS ILLEGAL. But Ofcom, the courts, the police and the Government don`t seem to give a flying fuck about it.

HELP! I`m being oppressed, marginalised and discriminated against because I happen to like consensual adult porn and I don`t find vaginas, bums, tits, cocks, fucking, sucking and squirting (or anything else) offensive in ANY context. But then I`m a liberal minded sort of chap not a religiously corrupted freak with a huge chip on my sholder.

FUCK OFF OFCOM, YOUR TIME IS ALMOST UP!

 simcha    [27039.   Posted 22-Jul-2010 Thu 01:38]
Did anyone see the sex education show the other night? The show was on at 10pm I think and was aimed at 15 to 16 year olds. The show was set in a local school and involved nude models being viewed for the purposes of sex education. The part that I found interesting was the close up examination of a models vagina live in front of a hall of young school pupils. This sort of thing really winds me up! It’s fine to show this live to a class of kids but not ok for me to view it on adult TV. I have no problem with this being fine for these kids to view, just a problem with it not being ok for me to view. The other topic they looked into was the amount of porn these kids were looking at on the internet. Got to tell you! These kids were looking at more porn then the rest of us put together. They had opinions on pubic hair, labia size, reconstructive surgery, boob jobs, and at no point did the program even hint that this was not normal. Seems everyone knows that nudity and porn is fine except the regulators.

 MichaelG    [27038.   Posted 20-Jul-2010 Tue 13:04]
Ready for the latest `growing social problem`, as highlighted by The Daily Mail?

Oh good...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-How-teenagers-getting-digitally-high-music-download-internet.html

We should thank our lucky stars CommuNuLabour are no longer in office, as there`d no doubt be something being drafted up on the back of a fag packet in one of the House of Commons bars as we speak to deal with this. No doubt involving 3 years in prison for transgressors.

 bleach    [27037.   Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 05:27]
Some old cuts:

KITAMI was classified `18` for video in 1996 with the following cuts -

At 5.5 mins - In sex scene between two men, after establishing LS of man tracing scalpel around partner`s face and chest, remove all CUs of scalpel penetrating chest and drawing blood, resuming on MS of man`s head to camera.

At 15.5 mins - In sex scene when man spreads butter on lover`s chest, remove sight of knife playing around and jabbing other`s genitals.


REAL LIVES - REAL SEX LIVES was classified `18` for video in 1995 with the following cuts -

At 15.5 mins -Remove handling of erect penis by woman, which is not justified by context, and reduce previous sight of erection to a brief shot between slow dissolves, starting to mix away as woman kneels down into frame.

 emark    [27036.   Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 03:09]
Re: the Daily Mail and Moat - whilst I appreciate it that most of their criticism is against the comments being posted, in articles like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295141/Siobhan-ODowd-set-Raoul-Moat-Facebook-tribute-site.html they are also arguing that Facebook should take the page down. (And a large newspaper trying to harrass an individual just seems low, whether or not we agree with her - not to mention the typical Daily Mail-isms like making a point of her being a "single mother".)

Good to see that a columnist is talking some sense of the issue.

"There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship."

I don`t believe the tabloids have ever exercised degrees of censorship over some of the offensive stuff they print :) That stuff reaches far more people than a single person commenting on a Facebook page.

 emark    [27035.   Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 02:46]
"the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child"

I never said they should. I would disagree with such a law. I was just responding to axis45`s point about people who seem unable to argue a clear moral line, and he was the one who gave the example of beating children, not me. I was also talking from an ethical point of view, not a legal one.

"stereotyping "Mail" readers"

I never said anything about the readers...

"Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one."

Yes they care about fictional violence against fictional beings.

I also never used the word "abuse" in the context of the Daily Mail. Those were meant as entirely separate points. The MoJ article was about guidelines of the state using such methods; I was also pointing out a double standard rather than having a go at them solely for that issue. Nothing to do with the issue about what parents do to their own children. I think you have misunderstood me :)

 freeworld    [27033.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 16:28]
dano [27029. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]

If you look at yesterdays "Mail on Sunday", you can read Neil O`Brien`s thoughts. He`s saying (in his reasonable article) that we do not need the sort of internet censorship which New Labour would quite possibly have indulged in as a result of the "Raoul, man you are a legend" stuff. You can just hear them-"These opinions have no place in our society, therefore we will introduce a bill criminalising websites hosting them and people expressing them...2 years in prison and then onto our new hate speech register...blah blah". Who can say with any certainty this would not have happened given their track record?

I have not seen an article in the "Mail" saying people should be "banned" from praising Moat and blasting the police on the internet, or that people do not have a right to express opinions on the internet of this kind. What I have seen are many opinion pieces, in the Mail and elsewhere, expressing a distaste for those pro Moat and anti police opinions (which I tend to share, though I am by no means pro police these days). There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship. I would be interested if someone can point me to an article(s) calling for such expressions of opinion to be illegal and websites "banned" from hosting them.

As the O`Brien article says, in parliament "Dave" criticised-rightly I think-those who worship the Moat idol, but he has not used this as a Blunkett might have in his home office, to "demonise" the internet and use public "outrage" as a means to bring in totalitarian legislation to pander to what is perceived as "public opinion".

Some commenters on melonfarmers take great exception to anyone in the press for expressing opinions about films/tv etc which they don`t share. But we don`t all have to have the same views, nor are the views we happen to hold necessarily the only valid ones which deserve expression. So why get angry if any media organ prints opinions which do not meet our own? So what if people have different ideas about what is good and bad in culture and say so in print? There is nothing at all wrong with criticising things because they don`t concur with your own morals/aesthetics... whatever. Good, down with uniformity, up with diverse opinions and debate. That isn`t censorship, which is what melonfarmers exists to combat.

To my mind, what is tending to happen is... let`s say, a critics disapproval of the perceived morality of a movie, is somehow being seen as on par with him/her wishing to "ban" it. These are simply not the same thing at all. The first is completely legitimate, the second is not. So, in another context, "Dave" criticising facebook for hosting what he finds are unpleasant opinions and wishing people didn`t say these things, is not the same as "Dave" making it a criminal offense to print them...banning a site by legislation (and maybe criminalising the expressor). In a free society the first is legitimate, the second would not be. Nor is Simon Heffer being legitimate in the "Telegraph" in hoping the cops are taking the names of those venting anti police opinions on facebook, so they can be charged under "hate" laws if they ever physically attack the police later on (I don`t think the Heffalump is quite correct in his assumptions about the law here, I don`t think there exists a hate crime to cover expressing a hatred of the police?). Unfortunately this is the nasty territory you slide into when politicians foolishly decide to create "thought crimes", punishing what people think, rather than just what they do. Straw(curse him forever!) loved doing that. So, what is really very wrong, where I would become "indignant", is if critics go beyond "criticism" and advocate censoring that which they dislike, so nobody else can see/hear/read it.

And what is far worse, downright evil, is where some go so far as to implement/advocate laws which imprison people for looking at/reading/saying/hearing/possessing that which they dislike-where that totalitarian interference in people`s lives rests on the basis of subjective morals/taste/aesthetics and nothing else. Now, is anyone doing this apart from off the wall religious nutters, Beyer`s old mob and the man hating feminist lunatic fringe? Oh yes, a government, the New Labour one,they did it, boy, did they do it (DPA, dangerous cartoons..), in the most savage attack on people`s rights since (the Liberal-radical) Labouchere`s homo hounding amendment in the 1880s.

We will not see new DPA style/ban mania legislation, unless people are stupid enough to again allow grisly old Stalinists into positions where they can write our criminal laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1295614/Raoul-Moat-Facebook-proved-bring-law-order-Wild-West-Web.html

emark {27032. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16}
No emark-the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child. No doubt thousands of us would have had our parents in prison and we ourselves may have been at the tender mercy of the many sexual and physical abusers who got into work within child care homes, if that totalitarian madness had been up and running in our childhood. Bit suprised at you (I usually tend to agree with you and really admire your tireless fight against stuff like the DPA) stereotyping "Mail" readers as wanting children "beaten"- no we don`t. Merely the right to mildly physically chastise a child without being arrested and have our kids taken off us as "abusers". That word, which falsely implies the odd mild slaps are on a par with savage cruelty, is deliberately utilised by the "banners" to justify a quite needless and what would be a dangerous draconian measure, wherby a totalitarian state would impose into private life. It`s really the same sort of tactic the DPA advocates used with their harping on about legendary raped and murdered Guatamalans etc to justify a law criminalising any and all images, however mildly produced. Beware of giving the state even more power to criminalise us where there is no proof of harm and necessity-we should know all about that here. Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one.

 emark    [27032.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16]
@axis45 :

I`ve also noticed this online. On general English-speaking forums, that presumably mostly have US visitors, there`s a largely liberal viewpoint, and also generally what I feel is a clearer moral line. When I`ve been on UK-focused forums, in general (except here), there`s an awful lot more Daily Mail-style thinking, wanting to ban anything they disagree with, whilst supporting "their" right to do things like beat kids. Whilst there are sadly plenty of conservative religious nutters in the US, I think in general they have a greater sense of supporting freedom.

This has also led to oddities, e.g., it seems I`ve seen more support for the "extreme porn" law on UK _BDSM_ sites, whilst general international forums have hardly anyone in support at all.

I don`t know how England compares to other countries though.

"Contrast the french reaction."

Perhaps, but then there are other issues, like the recent Burka ban (or of anything covering people`s faces in public).

On the subject of beating children, see this story about the MoJ: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/guide-punishing-jailed-youths

Yes, the same Ministry that made it so people now get locked up for drawing a picture of a fictional 17 year old being "abused" says it`s okay for the Government to physically abuse actual children.

 IanG    [27030.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 09:02]
"Jackie Hill, who runs the Limelite Costume Shop on the other side of where the sex shop would be, said she intends to start a petition against the application: You don`t need it shoved in your face. You can get everything you want online if you really want it and it`s the clients that are going to be using the shop that really worry me."

Well, Jackie, its people like YOU that REALLY worry me! You judgeMENTAL twat.

What of ALL the other people YOU don`t see who "get everything online"? Do they worry you too dear Jackie?

I suggest you PUT BRAIN IN GEAR, OPEN GOB and SHUT IT AGAIN RAPIDLY. MORON!

 dano    [27029.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]
Notice the Daily Mail has been jumping all over the Facebook Rauol Moat controversy to start bleating out yet another one of their rants about the "evils" of the internet.
One idiot (the woman behind the Facebook page) has now drawn all those who wish to censor the internet out of the woodwork.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27028.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:27]
pbr, a bit saggier now. As octopus ladies go, she looks a bit past it to me.

 pbr    [27027.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 07:33]
Dave... you sure that long tentacle of the law drawing is kosher? As neither the guy or octopussy (...sorry...) have their imaginary birth certificates and grey hair in the shot... they could be under 18...