Understanding the Regulation of the Creative Media Sector
Regulatory bodies are organisations set up by the Government which have the responsibility to monitor, guide and control various outlets of media within the UK. This means that the bodies must regulate the control of mass media, which could range from Newspapers, TV, Film,Radio, etc... The main purposes of having a regulatory body is to protect the public, producers and anyone involved in the creation of mass media. They must enforce the current laws and promote the creation of high quality content. All judgement's set in place by the bodies are set according to the decided values and standards (standard norms). These social norms usually revolve around the topics of information, education, advertising, culture, audience tastes and decency. Overall, they are there to protect and care for the basic interests of the public.
(Image from)
Without these regulatory bodies, the audience may easily be offended and could witness obscene,harmful and spiteful content against there will. By enforcing a regulatory body to maintain and control the content; all products will be suitably fitted for the audiences viewing. For instance if a film contains strong violence and gore a rating is given and warnings are put in place before a film. This would be put in place by a regulatory body, which in this case would be the BBFC. Other things put in place are schedules, as 9pm is known as the water shed. This time is for more mature and adult audiences and will not cause harm and offence to children; as they will be asleep. The following themes are normally portrayed in this period: graphic violence, horror, strong language, nudity, sexual intercourse and many more. In this guide we will be looking at 4 regulatory bodies and the areas they cover; although like most things they also have flaws which will also be covered in the guide. The 4 bodies we will be looking at are: OFCOM, BBFC, ASA and PCC/IPSO.It is important that these bodies and rules are followed in order to protect the audience; but to also protect those who produce the program,film and media. This makes all media equal in what they are allowed to portray.
Again like we looked at in the previous guide, the regulatory bodies are there so any form of media considers:
- Not causing anyone harm or offence - A key point is to not target minors (those who are under 18) as they are not of age to be mocked and ridiculed. These means any production can not aim to cause harm/offence to anyone.
- People’s sensitivities - Things such as those who have been involved with alcohol problems may take offence. As the story line maybe unbelievable and causes stereotypes to alcoholics that are not true. Productions, will have to take other peoples view points into consideration and not just their own.
- Use of language/violence/sex - Some viewers may not wish to see this on TV or film, so warnings are often put at the start of programmes to make the audience aware. This means my production cannot be overly violent, use constant vulgar language or constant sex scenes. Unless a warning is put in place, which will reduce my programmes target audience.
- Product placement - Programs that feature placed products must display the P symbol (See chapter 1 for more details). As without it the audience can be psychologically tricked into buying a product. This is unethical because it is similar to brainwashing, the audience may not want the product but are being forced by the perception on the TV show. So the P tells the audience that they may be trying to sell them something in the programme. This means a production cannot misuse the trust of a viewer in my products.
- Stereotypes - The stereotyping of people must be true and cannot portray a situation/group of people in an absurd way. So when trying to make a statement from a producers point of view , they will have to be sensitive in a way in which people and events are set up.
- Representations - People and subject matters must all be represented in the same way. If the show was a reality show, everyone must be treated the same and in a fair way .As you cannot favour some over others.
BBFC
(Image from)
The BBFC was created in 1912 to monitor the films that were showing across from their buildings of operation. BBFC, stands for The British Board of Film Classification. It is an independent, non government organisation. So has no interference from the industry like the PCC did. This means that the government or any media company doesn't get the freedom of speech. As the NOTW was publishing stories they wanted to publish without sticking to the rules and guidelines put in place. The BBFC is responsible for the classification and censorship for films and videos in the United Kingdom. They have the power to cut or reject any work from appearing on DVD or in the Cinemas. All funding comes from the film industry, every film is watched and judged by the BBFC following the BBFC Guidelines. Not only do they cover the film industry but the Video Games industry as well. Although in this guide we will just focus on film.
(Image from)
All works submitted to the BBFC have to be considered under several concepts. For a start it needs to be checked, if it contains any content that could break the law, cause harm to the viewer or viewers as a whole through their behaviour. Other legal considerations they have to consider are indecent images of children, animal cruelty (recently brought into the guidelines in the 2000's), and acts of obscene publications and hatred towards discriminatory groups and the human rights act. For more information on the legal considerations check out part 2 of the guide.
(Image from)
Any work involving the deception of illegal behaviour, drugs, violent or horrific behaviour and acts of human sexual activity are under the 'harm test'. As if done correctly and considerate to the audience they will pass the test. Although any film that break the harm test may either be given an 18 or banned from showing altogether. Any work that breaks the law or is on the edges of the law, the work will be cut. If the whole film has the chance to break the law then they will be denied a certificate for cinemas. Which means it will be rejected from the UK.
It is important for the BBFC to exist to stop films getting through the filters. With the main aim to prevent any obscene or aspects of torture to be shown to viewers. In order to prevent harm and offensive whilst damaging the mind of the viewer. See Obscene Publications Act in the previous guide. This is also so all films get judged on a far scale, so all modern day films get rated the same. Which means any 15 film will have similar concept and themes. Last of all, most importantly it is to prevent minors witnessing any disturbing or distressing scenes.
(Image from)
The BBFC also offers consumer advice which is a brief description of the content in a film. For instance it will make notes on any issues such as violence, sex, language and drugs. It can also include highlights on themes such as suicide or contexts such as comedy or fantasy. Stunt warnings or warnings of dangerous activities are normally expected on a films for younger viewers. For instance a film may say this film is rated "15" and contains strong language and mild drug use. In the previous year the BBFC issued 1,159 films with an age rating of 18, 27% of the total 1,159 , which is 313 films rounded up, required cuts.
Age Classifications
The world classification means the splitting up of information into different groups or categories. For instance in biology each living thing has a name under the rules of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order,Family, Genus, Species. Take a human for example there genus is homo and the species is sapien, which goes to form the binomial name of homosapien. Although, in the world of films and the BBFC films are split into age classifications. This is done by considering the following: Context, Themes, Tone and the impact it serves, drugs, discrimination, bad behaviour, language, sex,nudity, threat and violence. In the following section we will explore how the different age ratings: U, PG,12/12 A, 15, 18 and R18; are set up and what makes each rating that way. For instance you wouldn't see any sex or nudity in a U film.
(Image from)
But first of all, films are given a certification in order to protect children from unsuitable and even harmful content in films and video. They also give consumers the information they need about a film so they can choose if they go and see it.Before each film is released, the BBFC examines and gives an age rating to each film or video. They are independent so have no biases coming from the film industry; which secures the highest possible level of protection to the viewer.In order to give a film a suitable rating, they must watch the film the whole way through whilst giving an overall insight.
.jpg){kind=logo}
(Image from)
U Films
U stands for Universal, every U film should be suitable for everyone over the age of 4. Although, it is hard for the BBFC to predict what will specifically upset a young person. The content allowed in a U film is the following. Characters can be seen kissing and cuddling but will not over focus on the scenes where this is present. Any horror, violence or threat has to be overpowered by the positive natures of the film. There should be no sexual nudity present, and the use of language will be infrequent and mild, i.e the use of damn and hell.
(Image from)
There will only be brief fight scenes with mid violence. Any distressing scenes or emotional stress needs to be swiftly resolved by the use of musical elements. Only the antagonist of the film may carry a weapon, but the attention to the weapon will not be emphasised, The protagonist of the film will not be scene carrying a weapon. There is a strict ruling of no drug references unless a clear anti drug message is being portrayed. U films can still explore a wide range of themes and contexts within the content. Although, it must be done in a way which is suitable for a young audience. Not all U films are aimed at children, although the films aimed at children normally include positive messages about loyalty, honesty and friendship.
Lion King
For instance, lets take a look at why the Lion King was given a rating of a U.
The Lion King is a Disney animation aimed at the audience of 7-70. The film follows a young lion prince named Simba who is born in Africa. Next in line for the throne to the kingdom is his uncle Scar. When Scar learns about the arrival of Simba, Scar begins to plot his taking of the throne. Throughout the animated musical Simba goes on a journey of life, in order to save the kingdom of animals from the evil Scar.
Although the films plot sounds horrific and violent, the film was given a U rating. Although the following issues were noted by the BBFC when the film was being classified. The portrayals of violence and horror could have to power to distress and disturb young children. The death of Simba's father is also very emotional and violent; the stress of the audience could also increase as the young prince is believed to be dead as well. Although, he is pulled out alive. However, the death of the father is not seen on screen and no blood is drawn. The negatives are also balanced by a traditional Disney ethos of everything will work out ok. As Simba recovers and moves on from his loss.
The BBFC also noted that in these moments of horror, they are not used to exploit the audience. They are backed up by a strong moral context which allows the narrative to show the rebirth of live and happiness. They further noted if they made the film a PG it would take the strength of a child's confidence away, by the lack of the strength to understand the scenarios taking place.
The Lion King is a Disney animation aimed at the audience of 7-70. The film follows a young lion prince named Simba who is born in Africa. Next in line for the throne to the kingdom is his uncle Scar. When Scar learns about the arrival of Simba, Scar begins to plot his taking of the throne. Throughout the animated musical Simba goes on a journey of life, in order to save the kingdom of animals from the evil Scar.
Although the films plot sounds horrific and violent, the film was given a U rating. Although the following issues were noted by the BBFC when the film was being classified. The portrayals of violence and horror could have to power to distress and disturb young children. The death of Simba's father is also very emotional and violent; the stress of the audience could also increase as the young prince is believed to be dead as well. Although, he is pulled out alive. However, the death of the father is not seen on screen and no blood is drawn. The negatives are also balanced by a traditional Disney ethos of everything will work out ok. As Simba recovers and moves on from his loss.
The BBFC also noted that in these moments of horror, they are not used to exploit the audience. They are backed up by a strong moral context which allows the narrative to show the rebirth of live and happiness. They further noted if they made the film a PG it would take the strength of a child's confidence away, by the lack of the strength to understand the scenarios taking place.
Batman 66
Although the modern day Batman films show Batman as a very dark and violent figure; there was a time where he was a favorite for the entire family. Adam West's Batman was aired on TV during the 60's and because of its success it was granted a movie. The characters were all very camp and no extreme violence, language or emotions were present in both media mediums.
The BBFC granted the film a U at release and on their insight stated the film contains infrequent mild language and violence. As every punch was normally over exaggerated and onomatopoeia would appear it a comic style punch. For instance: POW!, SMACK! There is no blood shown in the film. In one scene Batman is shown carrying a large bomb across a dock, trying to harm no one in the process. Even by deciding not to throw it into a river containing a family of ducks.
(0.07-0.33)
The acting and the filming of the movie were also so unrealistic the audience could tell everything was staged. Overall, leaving a light hearted feel to a comic book classic.
Scooby Doo and The Ghoul School
Last of all lets take a look at another childrens classic. Released in 1988, the films follows Scooby and the gang visiting an old haunted school. Although after the groups girls are kidnapped the rest of the gang must split up and look for clues to their location. Meeting a bunch of Ghouls along the way.
Through the use of animation and slip stick humor. Scooby Doo got passed as a U. The comedy duo of Scooby Doo and Shaggy make the scary and horror scenes more approachable. For instance in the clip above the character of Legs first looks terrifying. But by using him in a scene for comedic effect, the looks of the character take away from the horror it could of caused to children. This is why the BBFC gave the film a U rating. Other films that have a U rating are: Tarzan, Cars, Beauty and the Beast, Wall-E, Monsters Inc. Finding Nemo and Ratatouille.
PG Films
PG stands for Parental Guidance. This means that the film may be seen as part of a general viewing, although some scenes may upset younger children. Although, the BBFC are assured that a PG film should not unsettle a children above the ages of 8. Parents should consider whether they allow the child to view the content.
(Image from)
Under the PG rating, BBFC requires that films should have content that is appropriate for children. Mild language can be used in the right context, although strong and frequent bad language may require films to be of a higher film rating. The films may explore challenging themes such as bullying and racism but have to be done in a sensitive and appropriate way. Sex references and innuendos can be made but they must go over the head of the child. These are often included for the adults to laugh at whilst watching the film with their child. There may be some mild violence and some blood. This is more appropriate for the genres of fantasy, historical or comedy. Drugs are allowed to be references although only in an anti drug message. On the other hand, the BBFC don't allow any unsuitable themes. Sexual content of any nature, strong language, harsh violence or the promotion of drugs and alcohol. We will now take a look at 3 films that have been rated PG.
Frozen
Disney films normally have the representation of family friendly films rated at the classification of a U. Although in this case , Disneys hit of 2013 was given a rating of a PG.
Yet, despite the menacing nature of the film a series of elements within the film lowered the concentration of intensity of frightening scenes. These factors include, comedy, silly songs, dancing mice and strange behaviours of the amusing and colorful natures. The film also focused on creating a happy ending. Which is why the film received a PG rating.
The film follows Anna, a fearless optimist as she sets off on an epic journey, teaming up with a rugged mountaineer and his reindeer Sven, to find her sister Elsa. Whose icy powers have trapped their home kingdom of Arendelle in a state of eternal winter. The film contains several content that makes the film a rating of PG. For a start the BBFC labelled the film as mild threat:
- Characters become involved in adventures which place them in danger, for example being chased by a pack of wolves and being threatened by a giant snow ogre which flings soldiers around. However, the mild threat is balanced by comic moments and a focus on bravery and resourcefulness.
The film also features an evil character being punched and some mild rude humour, such as the dialogue, 'What if he picks his nose? And eats it?'
There is also a kiss between two characters at the end of the movie and a "size doesn't matter" joke is made, this however will probably not be recognized by children. There is also mild animated violence, such as Elsa accidently knocking Anna unconscious with her magical powers. Anna often trips and slips, which is shown for comedy,she is not harmed in the process. Olaf, the snowman, is impaled by an icicle but no blood is shown; the overall scene is comical. Some scenes may also cause emotional distress to young children, such as the fighting of the sisters at their funeral or Elsa accidently freezing Anna's heart. Because of all these facts the BBFC made the choice to make it a PG. If the film was toned down so it featured less threat, then it could've made it into a U. Although, the film maker/producers may have disagreed with this as they may want the product to stay in one piece.
Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone
The first film in the saga, follows the revelation of the fact that Harry Potter is a wizard. Years of living with his Aunt and horrid Uncle, due to the death of his parents, letter begin to arrive from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The film follows Harry's first year at Hogwarts, alongside the friends his makes and the problems he faces. This film was released in the year of 2001 and held a wide cast. Including: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman etc... etc...
All versions of this film were made released without any cuts needed. The film received a rating of PG for a variety of reasons. The main reasons are for violence and gore. As the film includes: a man in a clock using a spell on a women, the result involves the women screaming and falling down dead; a ghost pulls of his own head and shows his guts; a boy receives a broken wrist. A giant troll is seen throughout the end of the film. In one scene a giant troll attacks a girl in a bathroom. During the scene bathroom stalls and sinks are smashed into pieces by the troll, a girl is seen hiding under a sink and attempts to hit her but misses.
The main 3 characters, Ron, Harry and Hermione are seen getting caught in a vine which starts to suffocate them to death, luckily they escape alive. During a game of magical chess, a horse is seen smashed a mace on the opposite sizes queen. A character is seen receiving bruises and cuts from the battle whilst also falling off unconscious, his injury is a broken leg.
Alongside the horror and gore, the film also featured bad language. In total there were: Seven uses of "bloody", one use of "bloody hell", one use of "bugger", one use of "arse", one use of "damn", one "crap". Because of the use of mild language and the frequency of the timid language there was no choice but to put this film as a PG. The next 2 films in the franchise were also rated a PG for similar reasons.
Coraline
Films aimed at children may well contain scary moments, in this example we will see how the BBFC treats horror aimed at children. In the guidelines it states that for juniors there may be some scary moments. For instance in other films such as Jurassic Park, the attack of the dinosaurs on people may cause distress within younger audiences. When the stop motion animation film Coraline was submitted to the BBFC they wanted a PG request. This film was similar in style to Tim Burtons films, included the one called "The Corpse Bride".
The films tells the story of a young girl called Coraline, who is often left on her own by her parents. One day she finds a door to another world where she lives with her ‘Other Mother’ and ‘Other Father’. These ‘Other’ parents are borderline sinister as they have buttons for eyes and attempt to keep Coraline with them in the other world.
Examiners noted that there was a recurring feel of creepiness running throughout the film. The sinister nature of the film was also said to increase in a menacing nature. At one point of the film Coraline is asked to replace her eyes with buttons to become like the "others" forever. When she refuses the "other mother" turns into her true self a giant horrific huge spider like creature. Whilst trying to escape, the surroundings become scary and dark; showing distressing scenes of snapping planets and rats dressed as humans. Although the horror meets the criteria of the BBFC, "frightening sequences are not prolonged or intense". In fact the BBFC states:
“Many children enjoy the excitement of scary sequences, but, where films are targeted at a younger audience, classification decisions will take into account such factors as the frequency, length and detail of scary scenes as well as horror effects, including music and sound, and whether there is a swift and reassuring outcome.”
Although, not all the parents agreed with the PG rating, the BBFC received numerous complaints that children had been scared by the film; with some even leaving the cinema. The BBFC made sure to reply to all the complaints outlining why the film was given its rating.
12/12A Films
Those who are aged 12 and over may view a 12 film. Although in the case of 12A any one under the age of 12 may view a film if accompanied by an adult. However, 12A only applies at cinemas as the BBFC cannot ensure an adult is present while the viewer watches the film. This also makes it easier so a retailer doesn't get confused on the age ratings. This way they know a 12 cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 12.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
As we saw earlier, the first 3 Harry Potter films were rated PG. But why was Harry's fourth year at hogwarts ranked up in age rating?
For instance in the dueling scene between Harry and Voldemort you can tell why it received a 12A. First of all the setting of the scene is in a mistry and gloomy graveyard; giving the scene a very eerie and disturbing nature. Voldemort's team of death eaters are also looking very sinister and dark; standing beside the dark lord whilst saying nothing at all. The shots of Harry in pain and discomfort may also upset younger audiences.
This can be seen again when the Death Eaters attack the Wizard World Cup in the start of the film. As a group of hooded figures in mask make their way through the tents lighting them on fire, killing wizards in the process. Although no blood or death noises are heard from the victims. Although you see Harry wake up after being knocked unconscious. The overall lighting and feel to the film is darker than the previous films; which is another reason why the film received a higher rating.
Juno is a comedy drama about a teenage girl, named Juno, who becomes pregnant. Deciding she is too young to keep the baby, she attempts to give the baby up for adoption. When the film was first submitted, the request was the film to be made PG. Although due to infrequent strong language, moderate sex references and the brief sight of gory from an old 18 rated movie "The Wizard of Gore". The BBFC also made notes on the films tone, appeal, audience and the treatment of the the theme of teenage pregnancy.
In the film there are two uses of strong language, in both cases the word was f***. When being used they were not aggressive nor directly aimed at any person. The first occurs when the adoptive father tries to be cool about horror movies and the second when Juno realises she is going into labour. Because strong language is not permitted at PG and there was two uses of the language, thus infrequent, the film was labelled as 12A as infrequent language is allowed at 12/12A,
The film also includes fairly frequent sexual references, but they are moderate in tone and strength. For instance there is a reference to "Boners", condoms and getting "Snatch". Some of these references take part in a sexual health clinic where Juno considers the option of an abortion. Due to having links between the theme of unprotected sex; the bbfc deemed the sex references were considered to ‘reflect what is likely to be familiar to most adolescents’.
Tomb Raider
In the original submission of the film, there were several 'glamorising' shots of knives: the weapons were depicted in rather fetishistic detail, with close-ups, slow motion effects and glinting lighting. There was a great deal of emphasis on the mechanics of handling these weapons, with characters twirling them about to show them off. The association of these weapons with the highly sexual and sexualised figure of Lara Croft was felt to increase the potential appeal to adolescents.
At the time the guidelines stated any realistic weapons should not be glamorised; which is the same in the guidelines of 12A for today: "Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised" At the time the BBFC were particularly concerned due to the rise of knife crime in 2003. The film also contained a head-butt from the lead actress, the BBFC felt the fact that a lethal move performed by the lead character could cause copycat behaviour. The examiners also noted that the main content was aimed at the rating of a PG; but due to presentation of weapons and the head butt they were probable result at the time was a 15 certificate. In order to make it as a 12 the BBFC gave the following orders: ‘Significantly reduce the sight of the flick knife, especially shots which emphasise its attractiveness. Remove in particular the sight and/or sound of the knife opening, close shot of the bloody blade and clear sight of the knife being twirled. In final fight, remove all sight of head-butt delivered by Lara Croft.’
After changing the requirements by reducing the scenes with knives involved and the glamorization of violence,the head-butt was also edited out and replaced by a punch instead, the film received its rating of a 12.
Those who are aged 12 and over may view a 12 film. Although in the case of 12A any one under the age of 12 may view a film if accompanied by an adult. However, 12A only applies at cinemas as the BBFC cannot ensure an adult is present while the viewer watches the film. This also makes it easier so a retailer doesn't get confused on the age ratings. This way they know a 12 cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 12.
(Image from)
The tone of a 12/12a film is key. If a film is too dark, unsettling or disturbing it is unlikely to be passed as a 12/12a. Even if it meets the rest of the guidelines. The use of language allowed raises from mild to strong in a 12/12a. With words such as f*** being allowed. Although, it needs to be dependent on the manner,frequency and the contextual justification of the language. If the language is too frequent and not found justifiable, the film becomes considered for higher considerations such as 15 or 18. Strong language can be used for comedic effect, I.e puns. The use of aggressive discriminatory language such as homophobic or racial slurs is unlikely to be allowed; unless the use of the language has the consequences on screen and is clearly condemned.
Sex may be briefly and discreetly portrayed, and verbal language used to describe sex must not go beyond what's suitable for young teenagers. The use of the comedy genre may lessen the impact of moderate sex references or innuendo. There is also the use of moderate violence allowed but it should not focus on the detail. Sexual violence may be implied, but again there needs to be a strong justiciation for the context. Last of all, drug use must be infrequent and should not be
glamorised. Now lets look at some films that were rated 12.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
As we saw earlier, the first 3 Harry Potter films were rated PG. But why was Harry's fourth year at hogwarts ranked up in age rating?
The film was given a rating of 12A as the examiners felt younger or more sensitive viewers could be easily frightened or upset by the increasingly intense scenes. Although, no changes in the films content was needed to get its rating. At the rating of 12A the BBFC allow a moderate level of violence but they do not focus on injuries or blood.
For instance in the dueling scene between Harry and Voldemort you can tell why it received a 12A. First of all the setting of the scene is in a mistry and gloomy graveyard; giving the scene a very eerie and disturbing nature. Voldemort's team of death eaters are also looking very sinister and dark; standing beside the dark lord whilst saying nothing at all. The shots of Harry in pain and discomfort may also upset younger audiences.
This can be seen again when the Death Eaters attack the Wizard World Cup in the start of the film. As a group of hooded figures in mask make their way through the tents lighting them on fire, killing wizards in the process. Although no blood or death noises are heard from the victims. Although you see Harry wake up after being knocked unconscious. The overall lighting and feel to the film is darker than the previous films; which is another reason why the film received a higher rating.
Juno
(Image from)
The film also includes fairly frequent sexual references, but they are moderate in tone and strength. For instance there is a reference to "Boners", condoms and getting "Snatch". Some of these references take part in a sexual health clinic where Juno considers the option of an abortion. Due to having links between the theme of unprotected sex; the bbfc deemed the sex references were considered to ‘reflect what is likely to be familiar to most adolescents’.
Tomb Raider
The first feature length film of the game series Tomb Raider, was released in June 2001 and stared Angelina Jolie. The film follows the heroine of Lara Croft as she goes to save the day by recovering an artifact from an ancient civilisation. When the film was submitted to the BBFC they were keen to get a 12 classification. Due to the time of release, they were 2 years from introducing the 12A rule. For the first submission the BBFC states:
(Image from)
After changing the requirements by reducing the scenes with knives involved and the glamorization of violence,the head-butt was also edited out and replaced by a punch instead, the film received its rating of a 12.
15 Films
(Image from)
Attack the Block
Attack the Block is a British horror movie directed by Joe Cornish. The setting is in the South of London in the run down housing estate. The film follows a group of muggers who form an alliance with a nurse they previously robbed; everything is going well until the aliens attack their housing block.
When the film was first submitted it came with no age rating request. The characters and the tone of the film immediately rang the 15 alarm bell for the BBFC, as they had a strong appeal to older teenagers. From start to finish the film has frequent strong language which means it does not meet the requirements for a 12A, as that is strictly infrequent use only. Therefore, the film was put into a 15 category within the first reel. There is also a lot of violence and gore within the film. For instance some humans are bitten, scratched, attacked and killed. Blood is also frequent, in scenes such as blood squirting from character's mouth. Although the BBFC examiners noted it was set in a fantasy scenario and felt it was partially justified by the context.
(Image from)
One of the weapons used in the film is fireworks, and the BBFC has had to get cuts in works aimed at younger children in the past. Although in this case, because it was aimed at an older audience the scene remained in the final cut. The film features heavy use of drug dealing and taking, but a character is shown being arrest for the possession of drugs and a knife. Which counter balances each other nicely. As the BBFC Guidelines at 15 state that 'drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse'.This is why the film was passed for a 15, on the BBFC insight they explain the film contains strong language, violence,gore and soft drug use.
Black Swan
The issues that were raised is that the film includes the issue of self harm and bulimia. Although the scenes judged were noted to be unlikely to encourage copycat behaviour. As the BFFC states at 15 note ‘Dangerous behaviour (for example, ... self-harming) should not dwell on detail which could be copied’. To further help deny copy cat behaviour, Nina is not seen to enjoy, relieve or comfort herself by self harming.
There is also a scene which depicts Nina drinking a spiked drink in order to relax herself. Although she enjoys it at first, she eventually becomes disoriented and loses the control of her actions. Because the scene shown no signs of drug promotion and could be seen as a warning to 15-17 year olds about the risk of drugs the film was not pulled over. Although the biggest problem was the sex scenes within the film. As Nina is encouraged to pleasure herself to connect with her sexuality, which is followed by scenes of masturbation. These sequences were considered to lack the strong detail which made it not go beyond the rating of 15.
Also in the film was one scene that took the Black Swan to the 15/18 rating border. When Nina and Lily embrace in a night of passion after a drunken night. The BBFC noted the scene was extended and carried out in an erotic charge. Although the scene was carefully framed and visually discreet. It lack the strong details such as genital nudity, close ups and sustained focus on nudity. However, the narrative context was seen to be a change in Nina's character. As she was emerging her personal assertion whilst losing her grip on reality. The BBFC also noted: "There was no concern about the sex being 'lesbian' at 15, as the BBFC applies its criteria to the same standards regardless of sexual orientation. However, it was recognised that this would be an aggravating element for some viewers." In the insights it was noted the film included strong sex, language and bloody images.
Brokeback Mountain
Last of all lets look at the final film example of a 15.
The critically acclaimed film Brokeback Mountain follows the relationship between two ranch hands who fall in love whilst looking after the sheep in the Wynoming Mountains. In America the film had received an R due to its nudity, language and violence. Yet, in Britain it was submitted for a UK release of a 15. The key issues the BBFC had to deal with were the moderate to strong sex scenes, the strong language and brief violence. The main violence issues was when a back story was being told, in which a bloodied body of man is seen; as his penis was cut off by his neighbours for being gay. A violent and brutal punch em up, although not detailed, can be seen in the film.
After the scene you can see the bloody face of one of the characters involved. The film also could not of been below a 15 due to the strong frequent language. Although the sex scenes had to be carefully looked at by the BBFC. Due to the strongest sex scene being between Ennis and his wife. Which shows aggressive and forceful sex. Due to the movement and length of the scene, it could not of been included in a film rated 12A, as sexual activity can only be implied at this stage. The BBFC has also passed gay kissing and relationships to be in all categories as "The BBFC Guidelines treat heterosexual activity and homosexuality equally, just as the law in the UK demands, stating:The portrayal of human sexual activity can range from kissing and references to ‘making love’ to detail of real sex. This is reflected in the classification system, in which progressively stronger portrayal is allowed as the categories rise. The BBFC Guidelines apply the same standards to homosexual as to heterosexual activity. It would be illegal under the Human Rights Act 1998 for the BBFC to discriminate between depictions of heterosexual and homosexual relationships"
This is why Brokeback Mountain received a rating of 15, in the insight the film was said to contain strong language, moderate sex and violence.
18 Films/R18:
(Image from)
18 Films: —Any 18 rated films mean that the content is only for adults. No one younger than 18 may see an 18 film in a cinema, or rent/purchase a copy. —There are no prohibited themes at 18, as the audience has their say on what they watch. The main factor is that an 18 should not contain any illegal or any potentially harmful scenes that could be found offense, even to an older audience.—
There is no limits on the amount of profanity, the use of swearing can range from aggressive, direct, frequent and along side acts of violence . There may also be some racism, homophobic and discriminative language in the films content, although the work on the whole must not breach the legislation set in place.—Last of all, can be strong and visual portrayals of sexual acts, including themes such as full nudity. The main conclusion for sex is that it is not a sex work. This means that the film should not be created for sexual arousal. Overall the content you would expect from an 18 are the following:Extremely strong violence, —very frequent swearing, using all ranges of the cursing spectrum, strong portrayals of sexual activity, sexual violence, strong horror, lots of blood and gore that could be taken as real,real sex (not faked for film) and —acts of discrimination.
(Image from)
R18: Are R-18 films are only allowed in licensed cinemas or are supplied to licensed sex shops and are to be sold to adults only. This is a special and legally restricted classification for explicit works of consenting sex or fetish material involving adults. It is rare for an R18 to appear in a cinema. In this next section we will be looking at 3 films that got rated an 18.
Human Centipede 2
(Image from)
The sequel to the first Human Centipede, which featured a large chain people being stitched mouth to anus to create a large "Human Centipede", was banned by the BBFC as it was "just too horrible to show" and "poses a real risk to cinemagoears". They denied the film to have an 18 certificate because of its obscene content. The affect of this meant that it could not legally be supplied to anyone or anywhere in the United Kingdom. The film focus's on a man who becomes sexually interested in the first event and wants to try the idea for himself. Which is already a red light as it is promoting events of torture and corruption.
Some of the scenes involve rape, which is inflicted by the male to a women on the end of the centipede whilst his privates are covered in barbed wire. The BBFC sums up the film as the "sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture and murder of his naked victims". The decision was made that not only would it not get the certificate but also that no amount of cuts would make the film better. This was done by the BFFC to prevent the film from breaking the act as it has very good chances of doing so. If the BBFC hadn't have stepped in then this film could of had a huge , negative, impact on the audience.
This film was also banned in Australia for a while and in New Zealand; but after some thought and 32 cuts. The film was given its 18 certificate in the UK. The 32 cuts removed 2 minutes and 37 seconds from the original film. For a full list of scenes that were cut check out the link here (at your own expense): link.
50 Shades of Grey
—The film adaption of E.L James's erotic book was given an 18 rating, due to the frequent amount of “strong sex and nudity” and its depiction of graphic sex scenes. As the film follows Anastasia Steele, a women whose life changes when she meets an S&M obsessed business man Christian Grey.
—
—The movie contains a total amount of “ a dozen sex scenes” although the director, Taylor Johnson, stated she was determined not to make the whole film about it; instead she wanted to focus on the love story formed between the pair. As the original source material was panned for focusing too much on the explicit content and no the narrative,
—This means that the wide audience has been narrowed down to adults only and will not be shown as an 15 in the UK. —The BBFC insisted that no cuts were needed meaning there was no negotiation on making the film an 18. The main reason for the 18 was the scenes of nudity, there has so far been no reports of violence or heavy strong language.
Straw Dogs
(Image from)
The film follows Dustin Hoffman who plays an american professor, David Sumner. After he moves from the States to a Cornish village. However, the locals prove to be less welcoming than expecting after a series of events take place. Ranging from the death of a cat to a raping of David's wife. The scene of rape in the film created censorship difficulties for Straw Dogs; as the scene shows the start as a violent assault which turns into a scene of acceptance.
Apart from the scene including strong violence and nudity, Amy's (the wife) reaction to the attack makes the film uncomfortable to watch and can be seen out of context. Relating to an old male myth that women secretly enjoy being raped. Which for our concerns, is totally inappropriate to the modern age. During the post production of the film the secretary of the BBFC asked for parts of the rape scene to be toned down. This made the final film a rating of X without any further cuts. Although, many complained. When the film was out on VHS it received the same rating as they did not need to be rated separately black in the 80's. Although it did eventually needed a rating, which meant the VHS was out for 8 years on home viewing, uncut and without a certificate. In the end it was took out of video stores in the late 1980's.
Various version were submitted to the BBFC, including a 3 1/2 minute cut version as they also saw Amy as enjoying the experience. Shortly after the 3 1/2 minute cut was sent of to be certified the original was sent although due to the timing of an unedited and edited being sent in; that too was rejected.
In 2002, the uncut version was tried again but this time the BBFC put it too a study group. After new guidelines focused on having the adults to have the right to choose their own viewing. Those who were in the study group were leading clinical psychologist specialising in work with sex offenders and a panel of the public were also involved. The overall results were "A focus group of 26 people viewed Straw Dogs, with 20 people accepting 18 uncut as the most appropriate category, five suggesting only minor cuts, and only one favouring rejection. No respondent asked for major cuts of the kind required by the BBFC in 1999"
Over the years the BBFC saw the light that the rape scene had lost its powers over the years, In the restored version the BBFC concluded that the film had no significance in the potential to cause harm to viewers or society. Leaving the film as uncut and rated 18.
Banned/ Rejected Work
Although, if a film is too extreme and does not fit in any of the BBFC's guidelines, they have the rights to deny a film a certificate. This means the film will not be shown in any UK cinemas unless changes are made to the final cut. For instance, the Human Centipede 2, above, had to have over 2 minutes of cuts to fit into the 18 rating. In this section we will look at two films which where rejected by the BBFC.
Cannibal Holocaust
The 1979 film was not submitted to the BBFC at the time of production as it was presumed that no distributor felt that it was likely to be accepted for classification. Although a version was put out on video in 1982 that was without a BBFC certificate. This meant the video nastie at the time was freely available to everyone of all ages, including children. Alongside over video nasties at the time, this film was at the top of the BBFC's list. Even though some video nasties were mild and a handful received a certificate of the BBFC.
The film recounts the story of an American film crew who go through the jungles to find a missing team of young documentary filmmakers. Although they never find the crew they do find the recording equipment. Upon returning they find out the footage they got was in fact fake and fabricated footage on the local people and wildlife. However, the final footage shows the local people taking their revenge on the crew...
(Image from)
The BBFCinsight states that the film 'Contains strong sex, sexual violence, bloody violence, and animal slaughter'.
Grotesque
(Image from)
Grotesque is a subtitled Japanese horror film, at the time of release it was labelled 'the film that could make even the most extreme splatter horror fan vomit'. In the film a man kidnaps a couple who are on their first date and he performs acts of sexual violence and extreme torture, which doesn't sound like a pleasant film from first thoughts. After an argument/debate between the director and examiners of the board , the film was rejected in late 2009. Which means the film cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.
Although the film is said to be well made, the film pays far too much attention on the torture and violence rather than narrative or character development. For instance the BBFC describes one of the scenes: "The terrified couple are seen restrained in a room, facing each other, then stripped and masturbated by the killer until they reach orgasm." Alongside this the film also contains other strong elements of humiliation, brutality and sadism in the torture. The overall statement from the BBFC states:"The Guidelines on rejected works state that 'If a central concept of the work is unacceptable (for example, a sex work with a rape theme); or if intervention in any of the ways noted above is not acceptable to the submitting company; or if the changes required would be extensive or complex; the work may be rejected, ie refused a classification at any category'. Cuts were not considered viable given that there was so much unacceptable material in the film, and the film was therefore rejected."
BBFC - Intervention
By any means possible the BBFC will deal with any issues raised through the submission of a film for classification. Some cases require the work to be cut or make other changes; such as adding warning captions before the film. As we have saw before, there is chances of work being rejected a classification in any category.
If a work is submitted for a classification and comes out higher than expected, the BBFC may ask for some minor changes such as cuts for it to be lowered in classification. This choice for cuts is fully down to the BBFC, if the work needed is too complex the idea will not be mentioned. Material that is often cut from films include: promotion of illegal activity, obscene material, work created by committing criminal acts, sexual abuse/abuse aimed at children, sexual violence, themes of violence, sex works (pornography) and portrayals of real graphic violence and injury. If one of these themes is a central concept of a film, it will be rejected from receiving a classification.
Ofcom - Broadcasting Code
(Image from)
Ofcom/Office of communications is a communications regulator in the UK. They regulate TV,Radio,Phone Lines,Mobiles,Postal Services and the communications of wireless devices. They operate from a series of Acts of Parliament and must act within the legislation. They are funded by fees from the industry and has a grant-aid from the government. They main legal duties are to "ensure:
- the UK has a wide range of electronic communications services, including high-speed services such as broadband;
- a wide range of high-quality television and radio programmes are provided, appealing to a range of tastes and interests;
- television and radio services are provided by a range of different organisations;
- people who watch television and listen to the radio are protected from harmful or offensive material;
- people are protected from being treated unfairly in television and radio programmes, and from having their privacy invaded;
- a universal postal service is provided in the UK - this means a six days a week, universally priced delivery and collection service across the country; and
- the radio spectrum (the airwaves used by everyone from taxi firms and boat owners, to mobile-phone companies and broadcast
Ofcom will not watch or listen to a programme before a broadcast. In order for the public to make a complaint before the broadcast of a show, you must contact the broadcaster that is responsible for releasing the content. In order to complain to Ofcom you can either write in or complete and submit a form online. Ofcom will then go through the entire Broadcasting Code to check whether or not the programme was in breach.
(Image from)
Ofcom are also not responsible for regulating: arguments between you and a communications provider, mobile phone text services and ringtones, content of adverts, complaints of accuracy in BBC programmes,the BBC license fee,poster offices or newspapers and magazines. Through this they have set up a broadcasters code , which professional bodies like the BBC and Channel 4 follow. The code is a rulebook for which any TV or Radio station must follow and sets rules for programs and broadcasters. It was created to protect audiences and listeners from harmful and offensive content, whilst producers/broadcasters have the freedom to make challenging programmes. In fact, Ofcom covers ten key areas, I will now look briefly at each section:
- the UK has a wide range of electronic communications services, including high-speed services such as broadband;
- a wide range of high-quality television and radio programmes are provided, appealing to a range of tastes and interests;
- television and radio services are provided by a range of different organisations;
- people who watch television and listen to the radio are protected from harmful or offensive material;
- people are protected from being treated unfairly in television and radio programmes, and from having their privacy invaded;
- a universal postal service is provided in the UK - this means a six days a week, universally priced delivery and collection service across the country; and
- the radio spectrum (the airwaves used by everyone from taxi firms and boat owners, to mobile-phone companies and broadcast
Ofcom will not watch or listen to a programme before a broadcast. In order for the public to make a complaint before the broadcast of a show, you must contact the broadcaster that is responsible for releasing the content. In order to complain to Ofcom you can either write in or complete and submit a form online. Ofcom will then go through the entire Broadcasting Code to check whether or not the programme was in breach.
Ofcom are also not responsible for regulating: arguments between you and a communications provider, mobile phone text services and ringtones, content of adverts, complaints of accuracy in BBC programmes,the BBC license fee,poster offices or newspapers and magazines. Through this they have set up a broadcasters code , which professional bodies like the BBC and Channel 4 follow. The code is a rulebook for which any TV or Radio station must follow and sets rules for programs and broadcasters. It was created to protect audiences and listeners from harmful and offensive content, whilst producers/broadcasters have the freedom to make challenging programmes. In fact, Ofcom covers ten key areas, I will now look briefly at each section:
(Image from)
The 10 Sections of The Broadcasting Code
Any content that may seriously impair physically, mentally or morally under 18 should not be broadcast. The scheduling of programmes should be done in a way so children, under 15, will not witness unsuitable content. Scheduling must revolve around the time children are likely to watch TV/listen to radio, the start and finishing times of programmes and when children are in and out of school. The broadcaster must also be aware of watershed, I.E after 9pm child should be asleep therefore different content is allowed after this time slot. If a risky programme is aired before 9pm, warnings must be put into place.The reference to drugs, smoking and drinking must not be included in content unless there is a strong reason to why. They should not be glamorised, the same should be said for violence and strong language. No sexual content should be broadcast before the watershed unless it is PIN protected. Nudity before watershed must be justified and any film banned by the BBFC should not be broadcast, unless it meets the standards set for a cut or lower rating. This must be agreed by the BBFC.
•Harm and offence
All standards must apply to the contents of TV and radio and must have protection for the members of the public. Factual programmes cannot bend the truth and mislead the audience. Any content that could cause offence must be justified by context. The programme must not glamorise violent and dangerous behaviour. Methods to commit suicide and self-harm must not be included in the programmes content. There also must be no demonstrations of acts relating to the paranormal. Any acts of hypnotism must not be down straight down the camera, any fake news must be done in a way so the audience do not think it is real.All methods of voting must be fair, simple and not misleading. Last of all, any viewers with epilepsy must be warned about strobe lights at the start of the programme.
All standards must apply to the contents of TV and radio and must have protection for the members of the public. Factual programmes cannot bend the truth and mislead the audience. Any content that could cause offence must be justified by context. The programme must not glamorise violent and dangerous behaviour. Methods to commit suicide and self-harm must not be included in the programmes content. There also must be no demonstrations of acts relating to the paranormal. Any acts of hypnotism must not be down straight down the camera, any fake news must be done in a way so the audience do not think it is real.All methods of voting must be fair, simple and not misleading. Last of all, any viewers with epilepsy must be warned about strobe lights at the start of the programme.
Content must not encourage the audience to recreate/commit crime. Any demonstrations or descriptions of crime must not reveal details, this is to stop the creation of potential criminals. No payment may go to any witness's or criminals, this is to avoid creating mixed stories and messing with the legal system. This is unless the information is important and is for the public interest.
•Religion
Broadcasters must show respect to the content of religious programmes. The views and beliefs of a religion on a show must be treated in an non abusive manner. The religion must be clear to identify, so that the audience is not mislead. Shows cannot aim to promote and recruit new members without telling the audience. Although TV programmes are not allowed to seek recruits in the first place.
Any form of news must be reported accurately and present in a balanced manner, they cannot show any favouritism. Any mistakes in programmes must be fixed correctly and quickly. Political figures cannot be the host of a news show and can only answer questions set by an interviewer. No personal opinions of the broadcasters must be included in the broadcast of news.Views and facts cannot be misrepresented.
The rules from Section 5 are also applied to this section. There must be a fair representation of all candidates/organisations in elections and referendums. Any discussions on results must finish when the polls open, the results of the poll must also be released after the polls have closed and not during. The candidates of the election should not appear in programming unless it was filmed before election.
Broadcasts have to treat everyone the same and cannot have unfair treatment towards people and organisations.When invited on a programme, the individual must be told: what they are doing, what they are expected to say/do, what the programme is, be aware of changes to the programme,and be given information such as preview dates. If the person is under 16, then parental permission is required, editing should give a fair representation of that persons contribution. The re use of footage must be done in a way so it does not create unfairness. Dramas must not aimed to create hatred to figures and events. If a person does not want to be included in a programme, the broadcast should make it clear and should not include them; unless censoring is used. All permissions of use of footage and audio of any kind, including prank calls must be clarified by the persons involved.
Any infringement of privacy in programmes/ connections made in the obtainment of material must have a warrant. The same should be said for peoples addresses. Consent of information must be checked and agreed on by the persons involved in the programme. A broadcaster must stop recording a person if they no longer agree. Permission for shooting on location must also be arranged. Warnings and arrangements must be set up for formal interviews, that are going to be used in the programme. Phone calls cannot be recorded unless the full details have been shared with the parties involved. Footage of those involved in accidents, names of those who have died or been murdered must also not be released. Any footage of under sixteens must be granted parental permission and may not be quizzed on personally matters.
•Commercial references in TV programming (Section 9+10)
If we look at Privacy for example, there are 7 rules a producer must follow. For instance rule 8:22 states "Practice to follow 8.22 Persons under the age of sixteen and vulnerable
people.A child of five has a very different view and understanding of the world around it than a 15
year old teenager has. Questions need to be appropriate to both age and development
whether the child or young person is taking part in a factual programme or an entertainment
programme.Care must be taken to not to prompt children and that they should be allowed to speak for
themselves. Questioning that is likely to cause distress should be kept to a minimum."
(Image from)
Rules like these are regular brought up to broadcasters as they are told:“Broadcasters are reminded of the legislative background that has informed the rules, of the principles that apply to each section, the meanings given by Ofcom and of the guidance issued by Ofcom, all of which may be relevant in interpreting and applying the Code. No rule should be read in isolation but within the context of the whole Code including the headings, cross references and other linking text.” Which means that each rule is significant and can link to other sections of the code as well. Which highlights to the broadcaster that you need to stick to the code carefully.
Although, a company may broadcast some explicit/pornographic material, even if some find it offensive. However, it needs to be proved it was justified in the edit, the audience were told and they are given the right information. The code also follows areas such as impartiality,accuracy, sponsorship, product placement, privacy and fairness. The code has a huge section dedicated to protecting minors. Such as the 9pm watershed slot on TV, timing/scheduling of programmes, age restrictions due to violence,sex and swearing; or any material which may influence children to copy the events witnessed in the show.
(Image from)
When an audience complains about a programme, Ofcom will check the report against the code. If the programme breaches the code, they write a decision/recording of the breach. The result of the breach is then published on the website, under Broadcast Bulletin. If a broadcaster commits a serious offence, Ofcom has the legal right to impose consequences. Which can include fines, or removed the permit from the company. Removing the permit means they are no longer legally allowed to broadcast material.The code only applies to the following media sectors: TV and radio. In order to make the public agree with the standards, the Code was drawn up after extensive research with viewers,listeners and broadcasters.
Content must not encourage the audience to recreate/commit crime. Any demonstrations or descriptions of crime must not reveal details, this is to stop the creation of potential criminals. No payment may go to any witness's or criminals, this is to avoid creating mixed stories and messing with the legal system. This is unless the information is important and is for the public interest.
•Religion
Broadcasters must show respect to the content of religious programmes. The views and beliefs of a religion on a show must be treated in an non abusive manner. The religion must be clear to identify, so that the audience is not mislead. Shows cannot aim to promote and recruit new members without telling the audience. Although TV programmes are not allowed to seek recruits in the first place.
Broadcasters must show respect to the content of religious programmes. The views and beliefs of a religion on a show must be treated in an non abusive manner. The religion must be clear to identify, so that the audience is not mislead. Shows cannot aim to promote and recruit new members without telling the audience. Although TV programmes are not allowed to seek recruits in the first place.
Any form of news must be reported accurately and present in a balanced manner, they cannot show any favouritism. Any mistakes in programmes must be fixed correctly and quickly. Political figures cannot be the host of a news show and can only answer questions set by an interviewer. No personal opinions of the broadcasters must be included in the broadcast of news.Views and facts cannot be misrepresented.
The rules from Section 5 are also applied to this section. There must be a fair representation of all candidates/organisations in elections and referendums. Any discussions on results must finish when the polls open, the results of the poll must also be released after the polls have closed and not during. The candidates of the election should not appear in programming unless it was filmed before election.
Broadcasts have to treat everyone the same and cannot have unfair treatment towards people and organisations.When invited on a programme, the individual must be told: what they are doing, what they are expected to say/do, what the programme is, be aware of changes to the programme,and be given information such as preview dates. If the person is under 16, then parental permission is required, editing should give a fair representation of that persons contribution. The re use of footage must be done in a way so it does not create unfairness. Dramas must not aimed to create hatred to figures and events. If a person does not want to be included in a programme, the broadcast should make it clear and should not include them; unless censoring is used. All permissions of use of footage and audio of any kind, including prank calls must be clarified by the persons involved.
Any infringement of privacy in programmes/ connections made in the obtainment of material must have a warrant. The same should be said for peoples addresses. Consent of information must be checked and agreed on by the persons involved in the programme. A broadcaster must stop recording a person if they no longer agree. Permission for shooting on location must also be arranged. Warnings and arrangements must be set up for formal interviews, that are going to be used in the programme. Phone calls cannot be recorded unless the full details have been shared with the parties involved. Footage of those involved in accidents, names of those who have died or been murdered must also not be released. Any footage of under sixteens must be granted parental permission and may not be quizzed on personally matters.
•Commercial references in TV programming (Section 9+10)
If we look at Privacy for example, there are 7 rules a producer must follow. For instance rule 8:22 states "Practice to follow 8.22 Persons under the age of sixteen and vulnerable
people.A child of five has a very different view and understanding of the world around it than a 15
year old teenager has. Questions need to be appropriate to both age and development
whether the child or young person is taking part in a factual programme or an entertainment
programme.Care must be taken to not to prompt children and that they should be allowed to speak for
themselves. Questioning that is likely to cause distress should be kept to a minimum."
(Image from)
Rules like these are regular brought up to broadcasters as they are told:“Broadcasters are reminded of the legislative background that has informed the rules, of the principles that apply to each section, the meanings given by Ofcom and of the guidance issued by Ofcom, all of which may be relevant in interpreting and applying the Code. No rule should be read in isolation but within the context of the whole Code including the headings, cross references and other linking text.” Which means that each rule is significant and can link to other sections of the code as well. Which highlights to the broadcaster that you need to stick to the code carefully.
Although, a company may broadcast some explicit/pornographic material, even if some find it offensive. However, it needs to be proved it was justified in the edit, the audience were told and they are given the right information. The code also follows areas such as impartiality,accuracy, sponsorship, product placement, privacy and fairness. The code has a huge section dedicated to protecting minors. Such as the 9pm watershed slot on TV, timing/scheduling of programmes, age restrictions due to violence,sex and swearing; or any material which may influence children to copy the events witnessed in the show.
When an audience complains about a programme, Ofcom will check the report against the code. If the programme breaches the code, they write a decision/recording of the breach. The result of the breach is then published on the website, under Broadcast Bulletin. If a broadcaster commits a serious offence, Ofcom has the legal right to impose consequences. Which can include fines, or removed the permit from the company. Removing the permit means they are no longer legally allowed to broadcast material.The code only applies to the following media sectors: TV and radio. In order to make the public agree with the standards, the Code was drawn up after extensive research with viewers,listeners and broadcasters.
Past Investigations
In this section we will be looking at the past cases OFCOM had dealt with:Frankie Boyle
Frankie Boyle caused controversy after one of the jokes, he made on his Channel 4 programme "Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights" ; In this episode he had an audience of 1 million. The following clip , above, shows Boyle performing the jokes that targeted Katie Price and her son. On the show Boyle said: "Apparently Jordan and Peter Andre are fighting each other over custody of Harvey, well eventually one of them'll lose and have to keep him." he then added: "I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter (Her partner at the time, Alex Reid) cause she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from f******' her."
(Image from)
Although I didn't find the comments offensive myself, this was considered unethical in a series of way. With the main one being that Boyle targeted a minor, as Harvey Price was only 8 at the time and has done nothing to make him a victim. This also meant Boyle was not aware of peoples sensitivities, as he was making a joke about the boys disability; which may also offend various others who have a condition that may be watching. And overall, the jokes were seen to cause harm and offence, mainly to Katie Price and her family.
As a result, 500 viewers complained to Ofcom, with one of those being Price herself. With her comments being ,that the jokes were 'discriminatory, offensive, demeaning and humiliating'. Ofcom themselves stated that Boyle's comments " directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities of a known eight-year-old child who had not himself chosen to be in the public eye”.
(Image from)
Ofcom ruled the content to be under violation of the broadcasting code, but no serious sanction occurred; and let Boyle off with a light telling off. This meant that neither the show or Channel 4 had to give an apology, put a warning at the start of the show or pay a fine. Which lead Price to state:
"'While I am pleased that Ofcom have ruled against Channel 4 and I understand that they consider this ruling itself to be a sanction against the broadcaster, I am amazed that Ofcom have not required, at the least, an apology to be broadcast.Sachsgate
The following clip is from the radio broadcast of the Russell Brand Show , featuring Johnathon Ross. The clip was prerecorded and was released on the 18th of October 2008, which was a Saturday. The broadcast came under controversy after the contents of the broadcast were deemed unsuitable, and has the potential to cause harm and offence. This was because the pair, Russel and Ross, were going to interview actor Andrew Sachs (Famous for Manwell in Fawlty Towers). Although after being unable to contact Sachs, as he was busy else where, they decided to leave a series of messages on his answer phone.
Instead of being polite and respectful comments left on the machine, it was quite the opposite. They not only targeted Sachs for mockery but his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie who was a member of the group Satanic Sluts at the time. Comments left ranged from "I had a go on his daughter" from Brand who had a relationship with Baillie in the past, to "He f****** your granddaughter... I'm sorry I apologize. Andrew, I apologize, I got excited, what can I say - it just came out." which was said by Ross. Over comments that ranged from a series of 4 messages left were She was bent over the couch...", Ross and then Brand burst out into a song of mockery with lyrics including "I said some things I didn't of oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter...". There was also insults towards Sachs himself with comments like "I’m sorry Mr Fawlty, I’m sorry, they’re a waste of space" ,“You only ever played Manuel . . . ” Yes! We’ll just sing to him and ‘Hello, Manuel is not in right now. Leave your message after the tone.’ For a full transcript check out the link here.
As a result Georgina and Andrew were left shocked and offended as there relationship could of been jeopardized after hearing the broadcast. Baillie states in an interview that "After the [prank] phone call, Russell and Jonathan [Ross] left me a voicemail immediately. It was Russell saying, "Erm, I've just left a voice mail on your granddad's phone. I think you should break into his house and destroy his answering machine." and" I got a call from my granddad, after [the broadcast] had gone out, saying, "It's awful, I'm going to make a complaint to the BBC." " and this was her response when asked about the last time she and her granddad spoke, "Quite a long time ago. Time needs to go by before I can face my family. My grandparents are from a different generation. Things that are acceptable, or almost acceptable, to me are not acceptable to them, so it's going to be difficult for a while."
(Image from)
There was a total of 37,500 complaints to the BBC but, there was only 2 straight after the broadcast aired. This was due to an article in the Mail on Sunday a corporate brand, which tried to point holes in the BBC so those who are against the state system could make a point. There was also a string of criticism from various figures including Gordon Brown who states it was "clearly inappropriate and unacceptable". As a result Ofcom were involved and found that they breach 3 rules:
- Rule 2.1 – generally accepted standards must be applied to programmes
- Rule 2.3 – offensive material must be justified by the context
- Rule 8.1 – the ‘standard’ requiring adequate protection for members of the public from unwarranted infringements of privacy
For breaking both 2.1 and 2.3 a total of £70,000 per fine was given and an £80,000 fine for breaching rule 8.1. Which due to being part of the public state funding came straight out of the general public's pocket. Which got viewers/Brits furious, which seriously let down the BBC as a whole. Not only were there fines they also had to produce a list of high risk programmes, so this doesn't happen again. Russel Brand also quit his show whilst Jonathon Ross was suspended for 12 weeks without pay. Lesley Douglas, Radio 2's head of compliance, also resigned. Ross was not heard on radio again, until recently when he stepped in for a show one week.
(Image from)
This broadcast also allowed viewers to point out flaws in the programme and the BBC. If the programme was pre recorded, why did no one listen through the content to make sure it was suitable for air? They should of also got more than one person to listen, as everyone has different tolerances when it comes to humor. Also, because it was prerecorded they could of arranged another interview which would of avoided all the chaos. They could of also cut the content after the first message was left, instead of adding insult to injury by playing all 4 messages. Ross had stated that he only wanted to broadcast to go live if both Sachs and Baillie gave permission, yet the BBC had not been able to communicate properly and thought they had the green light. When in fact, neither of them gave permission.
(Image from)
Although the presenters had said sorry, it took several days/weeks before the BBC actually gave an apologetic statement. Last of all, if the BBC had put in the correct guidelines then this case would never of happened. For a full time line of events, check out the link here.
Current Investigations
Now lets take a look at some of the more recent complaints to Ofcom.This Morning
During the live broadcast of daytime magazine programme, This Morning rule 1.14 "The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed " was breached. This was released by Ofcom after 3 complaints were received after the use of the word "f******" was said by the mother of Jade Goody, Jackiey Budden. This occurred during an interview (see above) when Budden was talking about her experience in the Jobcentre as she was attempting to find a job to reduce benefits.
She states: "...they said 'Can you push a doorbell?' Well I lost it, I went, 'I ain't got f******* five busted- ". Straight after the use of the foul language Schofield jumped in and apologised alongside Jackiey. In fact Schofield says: " Oh, no, no, no,no you swore. I deeply apologize if we offended you with that". Another 4 minutes after this event Ofcom noted another apology was given by Phillip Schofield. "I just will apologize deeply for that swearing that slipped through there-". Because the apology was straight after the case and a while afterwards the ITV was let off and was not in breach of the broadcasting code.
Jeremy Kyle
(Image from)
Some viewers of the Jeremy Kyle complained due to foul language featuring in the show. This occurred on the episode aired on the 4th of November at 9;25am on ITV. The overall theme of the show is a daytime talk show that focuses on the problems of the public. The problems are normally approached in a frank and confrontal matter, whilst a studio audience watches. A complainant sent in altered Ofcom, that the show had used offensive language during the programme. In the segment labelled: "I got kicked out of home after my stepdad exposed himself to me!" a female speaking stated: "I don't do it all the f****** time1!"Although Ofcom had noted it broke the rule 1.14 "The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed ". They also noted that the the language was used during a heated argument and both speakers were speaking over each other. This was allowed as a one off and was edited before being put on catch up.
My Sisters Keeper
(Image from)
Ofcom were alerted the film uses the word "f******" around an hour into the broadcast of the film. Ofcom began an investigation into the film under the rule 1.14 "The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed ". Ofcom declared the film in breach as the film was not uncensored before the watershed.
Kiss FM
The radio station Kiss FM was found in breach of Ofcom after playing an explicit and uncensored song by DJ, Calvin Harris. Ofcom received a total of 2 complaints, after the song "Open Wide" was featured on the Kiss Top 40 charts on November 2014.
Ofcom stated that at 17:45 there use of "sexually suggestive" lyrics were "clearly unsuitable". During the investigation, Ofcom pulled the station up for not listening to the song before it was aired. For instance one of the lines in the song is "I'm taking off her blouses/while she taking off my trousers". The use of swear words is also constant throughout the song. Kiss has stated the song was offered as an exclusive and a first play, which they based the programme for the evening around. They then realized the mistake and deemed the song unsuitable for family radio.
(Image from)
They also state an apology would of followed the song (or any other unsuitable behaviour), but due to the content being pre recorded the apology was put into place at the same time the following week. Kiss must now followed a new procedure for checking the content of new songs and the stations producers was disciplined as a result. Ofcom deemed the show of not having enough excuses to be deemed safe, as a result it breached the editors code. Noting that at the time of place children were likely to have been listening . Overall, this is another example of a programme breaching the regulatory code of conduct.
The PCC stands for the Press Complaints Commission , but closed on September 8th 2014 and was replaced by the IPSO: Independent Press Standards Organisation. The PCC's role was to regulate newspapers and magazines. To do this they were required to enforce the Editors Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry in 2011, which took full effect in 2012. although a big slip up cost the regulatory body its position in the area and ended up being replaced by a better regulatory body. But what slip up cost the PCC?
Problems with the PCC - Phone Hacking Scandal
The News of The World royal phone hacking scandal and the scandals to follow was the major turning point in the flaws of the PCC. This occurred between 2005-2007 around the hacking of voice mails relating the royal family by a private investigator. On the 13th of November an article appeared in the News of The World claiming that Prince William was in the process of loaning a portable editing suite from ITV royal correspondent, Tom Brady . After the story was publish, the two met and tried to figure out how the story was published as they had not spoken to the press. They concluded it was found out by listening in to their voice mails. This caused a mass investigation by the government and lead to 3 mean being arrested. Two men Goodman and Mulcaire were charged with hacking under offence of of section 79 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act 2000. Goodman faced 4 months in jail after admitting he was guilty. This was the prelude to a massive scandal in the News of The World, where they hacked into a murdered girls phone to find out what had happened. Not only did they hack her phone, they deleted voice mails to make room for more; in order to gain more information. Thus, caused the parents to falsely believe there child was still alive. Unfortunately, their child was murdered. This ultimately lead to the paper being shut down and the PCC being questioned on its ability to regulate newspapers and magazines.
(Image from)
The closure of the News of the World was a massive event that occurred due to a series of phone hacking scandals. Instead of reporters going and asking the people involved face to face, out of fear they would not reveal personally information. Instead they would tap into phone calls and listen to their voice mails in order to get a "Juicy" story. The scandal start a while back with the two men we looked at previously, which was 4-5 years before the closure of the paper.
Although this all kicked off in early 2010, when the Royal hacking trial from 2006 was re investigated , this investigation was entitled "Operation Weeting". Which began to hint at the idea that there was attempts to pay public officials for information and a new series of computer hacking cases. Furthermore, the biggest turning point in the lead up to the shut down was when the Guardian, reported that TNOTW had hacked the phone belonging to a murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In which they did so to try and get more information about the case, as she was abducted on the way home from school. On the 21st of March 2002 and was murdered as a result. Her body was only discovered in September which is 6 months after the abduction. It turned out that TNOTW had hacked her voice mail whilst she was missing, they also deleted messages that gave parents a false sense of security. The public were outraged at what had happened and called for the regulatory body, the PCC to be looked at. This resulted in the PCC being shut down and replaced by a new regulatory body, IPSO.
Module 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking
and other potentially illegal behaviour.
Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the
extent to which that has operated in the public interest.
Module 3: The relationship between press and politicians.
Module 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the
integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.
IPSO Although this all kicked off in early 2010, when the Royal hacking trial from 2006 was re investigated , this investigation was entitled "Operation Weeting". Which began to hint at the idea that there was attempts to pay public officials for information and a new series of computer hacking cases. Furthermore, the biggest turning point in the lead up to the shut down was when the Guardian, reported that TNOTW had hacked the phone belonging to a murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In which they did so to try and get more information about the case, as she was abducted on the way home from school. On the 21st of March 2002 and was murdered as a result. Her body was only discovered in September which is 6 months after the abduction. It turned out that TNOTW had hacked her voice mail whilst she was missing, they also deleted messages that gave parents a false sense of security. The public were outraged at what had happened and called for the regulatory body, the PCC to be looked at. This resulted in the PCC being shut down and replaced by a new regulatory body, IPSO.
(Image from)
Not only did the scandal focus on the public, it focused on: politicians, celebrities, actors, sports players and the victims who were in the 7/7 bombings. 8 people from the company were charged with phone hacking. Charlotte Church was also one of the victims, who had 33 voice-mails articles based on information gathered from her parents voice-mails being hacked. As compensation, her and her family received £60,000.
(Image from)
Another person who was targeted was Hugh Grant, he was told by the police that his personal details were found under an investigation. It included a recorded voice phone conversation between him and Paul Mcmullan, who use to be an editor. It was state by Grant, that McMullan had talked about hacking by the media, and was told that the Mail on Sunday had hacked his phone. All of this, along with many other victims caused the ultimate closure of the News of The World.
(Image from)
Although, several people were still not happy about the closure. Such as Ed Miliband who states:
"What I'm interested in is not closing down newspapers, I'm interested in those who were responsible being brought to justice and those who have responsibility for the running of that newspaper taking their responsibility and I don't think those two things have happened today." As although the paper was closed, those who published the stories and were involved in the phone hack did not all face justice. Another person, Ken Clarke (Tory MP) states: "All they are going to do is re-brand it". (According to the BBC). If the PCC had done its job, the newspapers would of been fined and pulled over for what they were doing. A big slip up like this, cost the PCC in its role of protecting the public and regulating newspapers and magazines. This was decided at the levison inquiry, as the PCC was critised for not taking enough action towards the NOTW.
(Image from)
The levsion inquiry came about when the prime minister announced a two staged investigation into the role of the press and police's involvement in the phone hacking scandal. As a result, Lord Justice Leveson was made the chairman. Part one explored the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Leveson states: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”
As a sum up in the, inquiry of the culture, practice and ethics the press published a report on the levison inquiry. The main points brought up in the report consisted of; that a new self regulated body is recommended. There must be no serving editors, government and business so there is no interference with regulation. There was no widespread of police corruption found in the phone hacking scandal. The relationship between the press and the politicians has become too close, which enabled the NOTW to slip under the radar for a while. Last of all, the press's behavior has been "outrageous" on occasional events.
There was 4 modules that were approached when dealing with part one of the inquiry these included:
and other potentially illegal behaviour.
Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the
extent to which that has operated in the public interest.
Module 3: The relationship between press and politicians.
Module 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the
integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.
As a result the IPSO was set up, although it is more expensive to run that the older body of the PCC. Here a link to the older system that was in place: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20531563. Here is the new system, which would become the IPSO:
(Image from)
(Image from)
The IPSO, Independent Press Standards Organisation, is a new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. This is the replacement to the older regulator of the PCC. They hold the highest standards of journalism and monitor/maintain the standards set out in the Editors Code of Practice. They hold the support to help the individuals who seek to complain about breaches in the code. But what are the guidelines, how do they deal with complaints and what is the biggest fine?
How they deal with complaints
In order to make a complaint to the IPSO, you either need to email them, fill out a online form or send them a letter. All means of complaints are free. Any individual person or company are allowed to complain to the ISPO. Information from the site states you must include the following in your complaint:
But what sort of complaints can IPSO deal with? Complaints are often related to articles, images, audio on online news sites, letters or any edited or moderated reader comment on a newspaper or magazine website. Not only can they deal with printed and published matters, they can also deal with the journalist themselves. For instance you may complain if someone refuses to stop filming or questioning, using hidden cameras, failing to be sensitives in time of grief or not getting proper consent when speaking to minors. Although you may not complain about TV or radio (Ofcoms jobs), complaints about the BBC, complaints against advertising (ASA's job) and various others. Which include:
- "Legal or contractual matters that are dealt with more appropriately by the courts, or which are already the subject of legal proceedings;
- Complaints about books, which must generally be made to the relevant publisher or author;
- Complaints about online material that is not on newspaper or magazine websites;
- Complaints about the delivery of newspapers and magazines (both to home and office addresses). If your newspaper has been delivered late, for example, or has been damaged during delivery, you will need to contact your newsagent or the publisher directly."
(Image from)
Now that we have looked at how you can complain, how do the IPSO deal with complaints? Once they have received the complaint it is decided whether it raises any alters at a possible breach of the code. If it is not of any importance the Complaints Officer will handle the complaint and reply stating why the complaint was not followed through.
If it passes will take care of the complaint up to 28 days if the complaint has not been resolved, upon the date of submission. The complaint will then be sent to the publisher, if this has not been solved that the IPSO will write to the editor asking for a response. The reader will then receive a copy of the publishers response and any outcome will be dealt with by the IPSO. If the publisher fails to resolve the matter the Complaints Committee will decide whether there has been a breach of the code. They will then take both sides into account and publish on the website whether the code was in breach or not, with an explanation. If in breach, the Committee will decided to either correct the published matter or remove it. But the nature, extent and placement of corrections will be set in stone by the Complaints Committee. A fine of up to £1 million is the highest the Committee will set in place.
Last of all, what is the Editors Code of Practice for the IPSO? The IPSO is set into 16 clauses. These include Accuracy, Opportunity to rule, Privacy, Harassment, Intrusion in grief, Children, Children in sex cases, Hospitals, Crime, Clandestine devices and subterfuge (Hidden cameras), Victims of sex assault, Discrimination, Financial journalism, Confidential sources, Witness payments/criminal payment and public interest. For instance if we look at Privacy the code is the following:
*Clause 3 Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The code also states that all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest standards and to follow the code. They must commit to the code and not be honoured to the letter, but in full spirit. All editors and publishers must apply the code to any editorial material in both digital and physical copies of any publications. They must also co operate with the Independent Press Standards Organisation CIC, which is the regulator, to resolve any complaints. ASA
(Image from)
The ASA stands for the Advertising Standards Agency. They are UK's independent regulatory body for all types of media. Their work on regulation ensures that they act on complaints, check the media for any misleading, harmful or offensive adverts, sales promotions and direct marketing, that may have slipped the mark. This is to not only resolve complaints, but to pick up on any adverts that the audience may not realize are in breach. Such as an advert that promotes a product that may promise outstanding results. When in fact the whole video has been drafted to mislead the audience.
If the ASA decides an advert is in breach of the UK Advertising Codes, they have the right to withdraw and amended the content. They also warn the advertiser to not use these standards in future advertisements. In 2012, they looked through thousands of complainants, 31,298 in fact. These complainants were linked to 18,990 advertisements considered to be in breach. Although only 3700 broke the UK Advertising Code. As well as the complaints, they actively check over thousands of adverts. This system is paid for by the advertising industry which also writes the rules for the code. Although the rules are not checked by the industry, which is why the ASA exists. To enforce the UK Advertising Code. This is to avoid any bias and corruption, like the PCC, in order to make sure everyone is following the rules set in place. Although any advertising in TV and Radio is handled in the last sections of OFCOM's Broadcasting Code. To see how to complain about an advert with Ofcom check the link.
(Image from)
In advertising there are two different forms of adverts. These sections are known as Non-Broadcast and Broadcast. For instance any form of advert that is printed or published is classified as Non-Broadcast. For instance a billboard or an online advert on a website. These adverts need to comply with the "CAP Code". If they do not stick to the rules put in place, then serious consequences are put into place. If one advert slips through that breaches the code, all off air advertising has to be pre-checked for up to 2 years. Which is a problem since millions of adverts are published a year. Thus, making it nearly impossible to check whether each one follows the Advertising Code.
(Image from)
The other type of adverts are known as Broadcast.These include the genres of adverts: TV shopping and interactive TV adverts. These forms of adverts are not checked by the ASA, but are regulated by OFCOM instead. Again, this will come under the UK Code of Broadcasting Advertising section.
CAP
(Image from)
The UK Advertising Code sets out the rules and guidelines in which advertisers, media owners and agencies have to follow. CAP is in charge of writing and keeping up the Advertising Codes whilst providing authoritative advice on how to follow the rules. CAP stands for Committee of Advertising Practice. The code itself contains 33 sections, when a complaint is received it must be checked against all the criteria. For instance in section 4, harm and offence, you must follow :
| 4.1 |
Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18.
|
| 4.2 |
Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.
|
| 4.3 |
Advertisements must not exploit the special trust that persons under the age of 18 place in parents, guardians, teachers or other persons.
|
| 4.4 |
Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety.
|
| 4.5 |
Radio only – Advertisements must not include sounds that are likely to create a safety hazard, for example, to those listening to the radio while driving.
|
| 4.6 |
Television only – Advertisements must not include visual effects or techniques that are likely to affect adversely members of the audience with photosensitive epilepsy. For further guidance, see Ofcom's Guidance Note for Licensees on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television at:
|
| 4.7 |
Television only – Advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident. The maximum subjective loudness of advertisements must be consistent and in line with the maximum loudness of programmes and junction material.
Broadcasters must endeavour to minimise the annoyance that perceived imbalances could cause, with the aim that the audience need not adjust the volume of their television sets during programme breaks. For editorial reasons, however, commercial breaks sometimes occur during especially quiet parts of a programme, with the result that advertisements at normally acceptable levels seem loud in comparison.
Measurement and balancing of subjective loudness levels should preferably be carried out using a loudness-level meter, ideally conforming to ITU recommendations[1]. If a peak-reading meter[2] is used instead, the maximum level of the advertisements must be at least 6dB less than the maximum level of the programmes[3] to take account of the limited dynamic range exhibited by most advertisements.
1 The relevant ITU recommendations are ITU-R BS1770 Algorithms to measure audio programme loudness and true-peak audio level and ITU-R BS1771 Requirements for loudness and true-peak indicating meters.
2 Peak-reading meters should be a PPM Type IIa as specified in BS6840: Part 10, Programme Level Meters. 3 Normal convention for analogue audio is that the peak sound level of programmes is set to be no higher than +8dBm, which corresponds to 6 on a peak-reading meter. The peak sound level of advertisements should therefore be limited to +2dBm or 4.5 on a peak-reading meter. Note: +8dBm corresponds to a digital audio level of -10dB relative to digital clipping level. ITU-R BS.645 and EBU recommendation R68-2000 describe how analogue audio levels should be translated into digital levels. |
| 4.8 |
Advertisements must not condone or encourage harmful discriminatory behaviour or treatment. Advertisements must not prejudice respect for human dignity.
|
| 4.9 |
Advertisements must not condone or encourage violence, crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour.
|
| 4.10 |
Advertisements must not distress the audience without justifiable reason. Advertisements must not exploit the audience’s fears or superstitions
|
| 4.11 |
Television only – Animals must not be harmed or distressed as a result of the production of an advertisement.
|
| 4.12 |
Advertisements must not condone or encourage behaviour grossly prejudicial to the protection of the environment.
(Image from)
|
The guidelines covers a lot of groundwork and ranges in sections from Harm and Offence, Compliance and Pornography. This is in place so that the viewer is protected for all sorts of danger. Whether it be misleading information, or unwanted sexual, violent or unacceptable behaviour. Although, a huge amount of adverts are normally cleared for airing before the initial broadcast, they are cleared against the UK Code of Broadcasting. To make sure the advert is safe, two pre clearance centres were set up. In order to clear adverts for TV, Clearcast was created and the RACC, Radio advertising clearance centre was set up for radio.
How to Complain
Any one can make a complaint. If you believe the advert is in breach you can either submit a complaint online. telephone or by writing to them. You will then be given the name of the person who will handle the complaint. Your details will not be passed onto the advertiser. A formal investigation by the ASA will then be committed. Any adverts that break the rules, either need to make changes or they will be removed from viewing. The result will then be written into a case study and published every Wednesday. The ASA are allowed to begin an investigation of one complaint. The basis for a complaint will often come from a viewer that thinks the advert is misleading or has caused harm and offence. In this next section we will look at adverts that received complaints, some of which were in breach.NOTE: these adverts are from the top 10 most complained ads in 2014, apart from the Pot Noodle ad, to the ASA.Case Studies
Flora "Wrestling"
This advert for the food product flora buttery recited 183 complaints for its content. The animated as was aired on TV and published on Youtube; the ad shows two young children using flora buttery to make their parents toast for breakfast in bed. However, whilst going to present the breakfast the children walking in on a game of "Wrestling". Because of this complaints flocked in stating the ad was offensive and unsuitable for children, Although whilst the ASA acknowledged the ad was suggesting these themes there was no direct graphic sex or distressing scenes. Meaning it was less that likely to distress the younger audience. As the innuendo would of went over their head; as a result this advert was deemed not in breached. This was the 9th most complained against ad in 2014.
Paddy Power
(Image from)
At the time of publishing, the ad appeared when Oscar Pistorius the South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete was on trail for, the alleged premeditated murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, The ad by Paddy Power was published in The Sun on Sunday and used the Oscar award and the face of Oscar Pistorius to connect the two together. The full text stated: “IT’S OSCAR TIME”, “MONEY BACK IF HE WALKS” and “WE WILL REFUND ALL LOSING BETS ON THE OSCAR PISTORIUS TRIAL IF HE IS FOUND NOT GUILTY”.
As a result 5525 were revived by the ASA deeming the ad to insensitive to the family of Oscar and those involved in the issues of the trial. As the death of a women and a disability joke towards the fact Oscar cannot walk,"Money back if he walks" , were being used for a betting advert. As a result the advert broke 3 sections of codes. These included 1.5, 4.1 and 4.3.
Sainsburys
The advert follows a narrative based on the truce of Christmas Day 1914, during World War 1. The story followed the two sides of the trenches putting away their weapons for the day; for a game of football. At the end showing a friendship that had been formed as a result. As the British soldier gives up his present of a bar of chocolate to give to his newly formed "one day" friend. Allowing Sainsburys to give the message that Christmas is for sharing.
Whilst many people saw the advert as heart warming, many people complained (823) that the use of an from WW1 was not suitable to promote a supermarket. Stating they found the advert in poor taste. Although there was no breech to be found when the ASA conducted their investigation. Deeming this advert to be not in breech.
VIP E Cigarettes
Coming in at number 7 on the list, this advert for an E Cigarette received 199 complaints. After all a new section (33) of the ASA was introduced after the E Cigarette became popular due to the issues around the product. Both ads were complained about. The first featured a women using an e-cigarette whilst making sexual remarks whilst a voice over states: "Find out why 89% of our consumers said they preferred VIP over other brands. VIP e-cigarettes and e-liquids. Quality assured since 2009. VIP.". The same advert is then repeated but with a man instead of a women.
In total there was 4 issues raised about the advert. 1, 68 people thought that the depiction of the woman glamorized smoking tobacco products and challenged whether the ad was promoting the use of any tobacco based products. 2, 16 people thought that the women was overtly sexual and challenged the offensiveness of the ad. A series of boards in country questions whether the ad was appealing to those under 18. The same boards also questioned where the ad encouraged non smokers and non nicotine users to use the e-cigarette. Out of the 4 concerns only 1 was upheld.
The only one to be upheld was the first issue. The ASA noted that the product was not related to the old means of smoking tobacco. Although it was the way the product was being used that glamorized the old means of smoking tobacco. As the ASA deemed the softly spoken voice and the appearance of the women gave the advert a glamorous tone. As a result the advert broke rules 33.1 and 33.3 of the Cap Code. No breech was found for the over sexual language used in the ad.
| 33.1 |
Advertisements for e-cigarettes must be socially responsible.
|
| 33.3 |
Advertisements must contain nothing which promotes the use of a tobacco product or shows the use of a tobacco product in a positive light. This rule is not intended to prevent cigarette-like products being shown.
|
Waitrose
(Image from)
Number 6 on the list was an TV and cinema ad for Waitrose, that claimed: " Everyone who works at Waitrose owns Waitrose". The ads complaints (267) came about after viewers thoguh the advert was misleading. As not all the services are part of Waitrose. For instance the cleaning service is outsourced. The ASA first approached Waitrose with the complaints' challenge in which Waitrose agreed to make changes to the advert. As a result the issue was resolved before a full investigation.
The Sun
(Image from)
During November 2014, a email was sent to the subscribers of the Sun's Dream Team fantasy football competition. Stating: "You're signed up to Dream Team and for that we promise to love, adore and cherish you ... You can take your Dream Team experience to the next level by becoming a Chairman and creating a Mini League. Not only do you get to hammer your mates every week, but if you recruit 10 players or more to your league you will get: Entered into a prize draw for a date with a Page 3 girl - we might even let you pick which one, so feel free to start your research now ... Don't listen to your girlfriend when she says size doesn't matter. The bigger your Mini League is, the more prizes you can get your mitts on".
16.1: Marketing communications for gambling must be socially responsible, with particular regard to the need to protect children, young persons and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited.
4.1: Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
8.7: No promotion or promotional item should cause serious or widespread offence to consumers.
Pot Noodle
Last of all this advert does not come under the top 10 for 2014. This advert was one of the three online ads. Within the complaints (A grand total of 18) for all three two issues were explored. This advert explorers a young man sitting on a bus whilst eating a pot noodle. Whilst he tries to deal with the spiciness of the product when a young women starts to seduce him. At the end they begin to dance, only to find the pot noodle empty and the women was in fact a poorly dressed man. A voice over at the end states: "Dreaming of something a bit hotter? With new Piri Piri chicken flavour it's easy to peel the top off a hottie."
The ad is then concluded by an image of two Pot Noodles with their lids undone, to suggest the theme of a womens bust , some text also reads "PEEL THE TOP OFF A HOTTIE". The other adverts use the same themes, although the 3rd advert has a female model in a bikini picture next to a Pot Noodle with the text: "Phwarr is it me or is it getting hot in here? HOT OFF. Which one gets you hotter?".
The two issues found within the advert were: the advert was sexist and degrading to women and 6 complaints found that the ad was irresponsible and harmful because they suggested it was acceptable to try and remove women's clothing without their consent. I.E "Peel the top off a hottie". Although in the investigation the video advert was deemed not in breach. Although they saw the first advert could of caused some harm and offence the damage is not serious enough; and the women was not presented in sexist and degrading way.
Although when it came to the 3rd advert, they saw that action was needed. It should also not appear again in the current form and the company Unilever was told to avoid the use of offensive images in the future. The ASA also state that whilst the advert was a tongue in cheek of the word "Hottie" the use of the sexual pose and the blatant comparison with the food was degrading and crass. With results likely to cause serious harm and offence to viewers. As a result this was the only advert out of the 3 to be upheld. The ASA found this advert was in breach of rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence)
The ad is then concluded by an image of two Pot Noodles with their lids undone, to suggest the theme of a womens bust , some text also reads "PEEL THE TOP OFF A HOTTIE". The other adverts use the same themes, although the 3rd advert has a female model in a bikini picture next to a Pot Noodle with the text: "Phwarr is it me or is it getting hot in here? HOT OFF. Which one gets you hotter?".
(Image from)
The two issues found within the advert were: the advert was sexist and degrading to women and 6 complaints found that the ad was irresponsible and harmful because they suggested it was acceptable to try and remove women's clothing without their consent. I.E "Peel the top off a hottie". Although in the investigation the video advert was deemed not in breach. Although they saw the first advert could of caused some harm and offence the damage is not serious enough; and the women was not presented in sexist and degrading way.
Although when it came to the 3rd advert, they saw that action was needed. It should also not appear again in the current form and the company Unilever was told to avoid the use of offensive images in the future. The ASA also state that whilst the advert was a tongue in cheek of the word "Hottie" the use of the sexual pose and the blatant comparison with the food was degrading and crass. With results likely to cause serious harm and offence to viewers. As a result this was the only advert out of the 3 to be upheld. The ASA found this advert was in breach of rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence)
| 1.3 |
Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance.
|
Problems With Regulatory Bodies
Although we have saw the good nature of the regulatory bodies. They often come with disadvantages. In this section we will look at key areas that bring down the bodies; we will also look at key terminology such as censorship, consumer choice and freedom of information. The first thing to note is the regulatory bodies aim to create the best and safest content for the public? But who is classified as the public? In this video link (Click on link) it explains how the BBFC decides whose voice they listen to when amending the guidelines every 5 years. They state they do it by study groups, questionnaires and online surveys. Yet, by doing this who do they decided who takes part? For instance on the study group there might be a group that all think there is too much swearing in a 15 film. But because the whole group thinks this and not the entire UK; the BBFC might consider making the overall swearing down in a 15 film, or move films with lots of swearing into the 18 rating. In order to get a full picture of what the public overall taste and decency is they should make everyone fill out an online survey every 4-5 years. Although it would take longer to get through the results; it would represent Britain as a whole. As one persons taste can be very different to another. One may like horror and gore in films; whilst the other likes watching animated adventures.
Yet another problem arises from this, because all the bodies are separate the film sector would only get a look in. So if you had the bodies joining together, as in order to complain you need to find the right body, it would make complain easier and the public expectancy would be relevant for all sectors. This way the guidelines put in place by the IPSO, ASA, BBFC and OFCOM will have connections that suit everybody's needs.
(Image from)
As we saw earlier, those bodies that aren't self regulated , not by the government, such as OFCOM need to make sure that the government does not interfere with the rulings. As another event such as Murdoch s over taking and spiking of the media may occur again. The only body that is currently self regulated is the ASA which looks at preventing harm and offence, more than taste and decency. If more regulatory bodies moved away from the government support, then they have less chance of being controlled by set guidelines. Which removes the bias from the industry. Although, yes the BBFC is a government company; the film industry only funds the cause and does not control it.
(Image from)
Some other issues with the BBFC is that they may be over censoring and over certificating films. As the same film around the world could be getting passed at a lower age range. Take France for example when 50 Shades of Grey came out; it was given an 18 in the UK straight away. Yet in France it was passed as a 12. With Frances film board (CNC) saying “Fifty Shades of Grey” was nothing more than a “romance.” ; they further go on to say “The director handled the sex scenes very skillfully and limited them to the bare minimum. It’s more the subject itself, this SM relationship, which pushed us to restrict the movie for audiences under 12.”Although, the other countries such as Canada, Ireland and Australia went on to give ratings between 15-18. Even at an 15 it targets a wider audience than the average 18 rated film. So does this mean the BBFC is being too strict and over protective? As in the current times the main aim is to stop harm and offence to minors, yet a 12 year old in France is deemed to be suitable and with a 6 year difference what does that say about British children? Perhaps the BBFC has set the guidelines too strictly, as children in this generation are becoming more aware and tolerant quicker than the past. Perhaps, it is time to allow children to deal with more subjective themes.
Now if we move away from the BBFC for a second, lets take a look at the ASA. As we saw earlier it only takes 1 complaint to start an investigation. Despite the fact that everyone's tastes and decency if the whole nation par from one is fine with the advert why launch an investigation. Because, if the advert is deemed to cause offence to consumers it is told to change or be withdrawn. So is there too much power in the hands of the viewer? If that complaint was never made the advert may well still be in circulation. Although, an advert is never truly gone; in the age of the internet YouTube is full of "Banned adverts" where users can watch the video over and over again. Yet YouTube doesn't have an regulation and can't control who watches the clip. For instance if I type banned adverts into YouTube this is the first video to pop up.
Although they may not all be British, straight away I get a video on the top 10 funniest banned commercials. Proving that the advert is never truly gone if deemed unsuitable. As if only one person found it unsuitable before; the whole world can then access that advert and could cause more offence that way .Either way we have saw the problems with the ASAs regulation. 1) too much power in the consumers hand 2) Despite the efforts of banning an advert it will only reappear online, one of the biggest media mediums today.
(Image from)
Last of all in this summary section, before the big 3, lets take a look at OFCOM. They only deal with a product after it has been aired. Although it would be impossible to watch every single program this does cause problems. As it is shifting the power of regulation to the producers rather than the regulatory body themselves. Think of OFCOM as the supervisor, they deal with it when it goes wrong. If OFCOM could watch clips before they have aired then the Sachsgate and Frankie Boyle issues we looked at earlier would never of happened. However, it is fair to see that OFCOM cannot deal with all of the UK's TV and Radio; so how do you counter balance this? At this time OFCOM can only go on to work with the producers of the BBC , Channel 4 etc... to make sure TV and Radio is suitable for all.
Censorship
Censorship is the concept of blocking something from being read, heard or seen. For instance if you see someone swearing on TV it will be covered up by a bar of black or pixels. Some say the idea of censorship is a way of suppressing free speech; as some producers think that everyone should be able to access what they think and say. For instance when the BBFC makes films cut scenes for classification; this is also censorship.
This can be a good thing in order to protect the minors. As regulators need to have this in mind as you can easily upset a minor by the content in a film. For instance if a young child (age of 8) saw a brutal murder in a film; they may be petrified and scared for life. This is why acts will often work with the regulators to make sure no minor is exposes to unsuitable content. Censorship is also used to preserve the secrets of a country, such as military information, dangerous stunts in films for younger audiences may be censored to stop copy cat behavior. It also also prevents countries from having a political propaganda; I.E a film in the UK could heavily promote the Tory party. Last of all, it cuts out vulgar scenes and other themes that children may find upsetting.
(Image from)
Although, by the regulatory bodies using censorship it comes with negatives. The producers of the film may think the bodies are compromising there freedom of speech. As they deem the cut suitable to the film and an important message is being put across by its involvement. They may also see it as a dig at their talent. Either way the film maker does not agree on most cases when they are approached to remove sections of there film. For instance the director of the film "Summer of Blood" states: "I'm an outsider, so I can do whatever I want." - Onur Tukel. However, you can see why the BBFC do it with an interest in preventing harm and offence to the audience. Mainly children though. The BBFC also state they do try and avoid cutting films. Some viewers will also follow the idea of self censoring. As not everyone likes the same things and has different tastes and decency. For example someone who doesn't like a lot of horror films will strive to stay away from them and go for a genre of their liking. Although, children cannot make this decision as they are not wise and mature enough to make these choices. Which is why PG and the 12A exist.
(Image from)
Another issue we looked at before is the idea of the internet. If a film or show is cut for a certain countries board then you can still access the original version online. And although the show will have been edited for the catch up services; the advert will still have caused offence the first time around. All the examples of banned and breached content we have looked at; came from YouTube. Which proves that you may be able to censor work but the original content is still out there. Children and teenagers under the age of 18 can also easily change their age online to access the content. If a teenager has an Amazon account then they could easily purchase the full sequence version of the Human Centipede 2 without going to the cinema. Which proves the BBFC useless outside of the cinema as younger audiences may purchase the film for themselves or get a parent to do it for them. Back in the day before the expansion of media and the internet the bodies would have an easier job at regulating the media. Although due to social media and the internet the uncensored versions of all content from regulatory bodies can be accessed at the click of a button.
The BBFC were also targeted for over censoring films in the past. With good examples being Straw Dogs which we looked at earlier. The BFFC also reduced films for their chances at producing copy cat behavior. Lets take a look at a copy cat behavior film a Clockwork Orange:
Problems With Regulatory Bodies
Although we have saw the good nature of the regulatory bodies. They often come with disadvantages. In this section we will look at key areas that bring down the bodies; we will also look at key terminology such as censorship, consumer choice and freedom of information. The first thing to note is the regulatory bodies aim to create the best and safest content for the public? But who is classified as the public? In this video link (Click on link) it explains how the BBFC decides whose voice they listen to when amending the guidelines every 5 years. They state they do it by study groups, questionnaires and online surveys. Yet, by doing this who do they decided who takes part? For instance on the study group there might be a group that all think there is too much swearing in a 15 film. But because the whole group thinks this and not the entire UK; the BBFC might consider making the overall swearing down in a 15 film, or move films with lots of swearing into the 18 rating. In order to get a full picture of what the public overall taste and decency is they should make everyone fill out an online survey every 4-5 years. Although it would take longer to get through the results; it would represent Britain as a whole. As one persons taste can be very different to another. One may like horror and gore in films; whilst the other likes watching animated adventures.
Yet another problem arises from this, because all the bodies are separate the film sector would only get a look in. So if you had the bodies joining together, as in order to complain you need to find the right body, it would make complain easier and the public expectancy would be relevant for all sectors. This way the guidelines put in place by the IPSO, ASA, BBFC and OFCOM will have connections that suit everybody's needs.
As we saw earlier, those bodies that aren't self regulated , not by the government, such as OFCOM need to make sure that the government does not interfere with the rulings. As another event such as Murdoch s over taking and spiking of the media may occur again. The only body that is currently self regulated is the ASA which looks at preventing harm and offence, more than taste and decency. If more regulatory bodies moved away from the government support, then they have less chance of being controlled by set guidelines. Which removes the bias from the industry. Although, yes the BBFC is a government company; the film industry only funds the cause and does not control it.
(Image from)
Some other issues with the BBFC is that they may be over censoring and over certificating films. As the same film around the world could be getting passed at a lower age range. Take France for example when 50 Shades of Grey came out; it was given an 18 in the UK straight away. Yet in France it was passed as a 12. With Frances film board (CNC) saying “Fifty Shades of Grey” was nothing more than a “romance.” ; they further go on to say “The director handled the sex scenes very skillfully and limited them to the bare minimum. It’s more the subject itself, this SM relationship, which pushed us to restrict the movie for audiences under 12.”Although, the other countries such as Canada, Ireland and Australia went on to give ratings between 15-18. Even at an 15 it targets a wider audience than the average 18 rated film. So does this mean the BBFC is being too strict and over protective? As in the current times the main aim is to stop harm and offence to minors, yet a 12 year old in France is deemed to be suitable and with a 6 year difference what does that say about British children? Perhaps the BBFC has set the guidelines too strictly, as children in this generation are becoming more aware and tolerant quicker than the past. Perhaps, it is time to allow children to deal with more subjective themes.
Now if we move away from the BBFC for a second, lets take a look at the ASA. As we saw earlier it only takes 1 complaint to start an investigation. Despite the fact that everyone's tastes and decency if the whole nation par from one is fine with the advert why launch an investigation. Because, if the advert is deemed to cause offence to consumers it is told to change or be withdrawn. So is there too much power in the hands of the viewer? If that complaint was never made the advert may well still be in circulation. Although, an advert is never truly gone; in the age of the internet YouTube is full of "Banned adverts" where users can watch the video over and over again. Yet YouTube doesn't have an regulation and can't control who watches the clip. For instance if I type banned adverts into YouTube this is the first video to pop up.
Although they may not all be British, straight away I get a video on the top 10 funniest banned commercials. Proving that the advert is never truly gone if deemed unsuitable. As if only one person found it unsuitable before; the whole world can then access that advert and could cause more offence that way .Either way we have saw the problems with the ASAs regulation. 1) too much power in the consumers hand 2) Despite the efforts of banning an advert it will only reappear online, one of the biggest media mediums today.
Last of all in this summary section, before the big 3, lets take a look at OFCOM. They only deal with a product after it has been aired. Although it would be impossible to watch every single program this does cause problems. As it is shifting the power of regulation to the producers rather than the regulatory body themselves. Think of OFCOM as the supervisor, they deal with it when it goes wrong. If OFCOM could watch clips before they have aired then the Sachsgate and Frankie Boyle issues we looked at earlier would never of happened. However, it is fair to see that OFCOM cannot deal with all of the UK's TV and Radio; so how do you counter balance this? At this time OFCOM can only go on to work with the producers of the BBC , Channel 4 etc... to make sure TV and Radio is suitable for all.
Although we have saw the good nature of the regulatory bodies. They often come with disadvantages. In this section we will look at key areas that bring down the bodies; we will also look at key terminology such as censorship, consumer choice and freedom of information. The first thing to note is the regulatory bodies aim to create the best and safest content for the public? But who is classified as the public? In this video link (Click on link) it explains how the BBFC decides whose voice they listen to when amending the guidelines every 5 years. They state they do it by study groups, questionnaires and online surveys. Yet, by doing this who do they decided who takes part? For instance on the study group there might be a group that all think there is too much swearing in a 15 film. But because the whole group thinks this and not the entire UK; the BBFC might consider making the overall swearing down in a 15 film, or move films with lots of swearing into the 18 rating. In order to get a full picture of what the public overall taste and decency is they should make everyone fill out an online survey every 4-5 years. Although it would take longer to get through the results; it would represent Britain as a whole. As one persons taste can be very different to another. One may like horror and gore in films; whilst the other likes watching animated adventures.
Yet another problem arises from this, because all the bodies are separate the film sector would only get a look in. So if you had the bodies joining together, as in order to complain you need to find the right body, it would make complain easier and the public expectancy would be relevant for all sectors. This way the guidelines put in place by the IPSO, ASA, BBFC and OFCOM will have connections that suit everybody's needs.
(Image from)
As we saw earlier, those bodies that aren't self regulated , not by the government, such as OFCOM need to make sure that the government does not interfere with the rulings. As another event such as Murdoch s over taking and spiking of the media may occur again. The only body that is currently self regulated is the ASA which looks at preventing harm and offence, more than taste and decency. If more regulatory bodies moved away from the government support, then they have less chance of being controlled by set guidelines. Which removes the bias from the industry. Although, yes the BBFC is a government company; the film industry only funds the cause and does not control it.
Some other issues with the BBFC is that they may be over censoring and over certificating films. As the same film around the world could be getting passed at a lower age range. Take France for example when 50 Shades of Grey came out; it was given an 18 in the UK straight away. Yet in France it was passed as a 12. With Frances film board (CNC) saying “Fifty Shades of Grey” was nothing more than a “romance.” ; they further go on to say “The director handled the sex scenes very skillfully and limited them to the bare minimum. It’s more the subject itself, this SM relationship, which pushed us to restrict the movie for audiences under 12.”Although, the other countries such as Canada, Ireland and Australia went on to give ratings between 15-18. Even at an 15 it targets a wider audience than the average 18 rated film. So does this mean the BBFC is being too strict and over protective? As in the current times the main aim is to stop harm and offence to minors, yet a 12 year old in France is deemed to be suitable and with a 6 year difference what does that say about British children? Perhaps the BBFC has set the guidelines too strictly, as children in this generation are becoming more aware and tolerant quicker than the past. Perhaps, it is time to allow children to deal with more subjective themes.
Now if we move away from the BBFC for a second, lets take a look at the ASA. As we saw earlier it only takes 1 complaint to start an investigation. Despite the fact that everyone's tastes and decency if the whole nation par from one is fine with the advert why launch an investigation. Because, if the advert is deemed to cause offence to consumers it is told to change or be withdrawn. So is there too much power in the hands of the viewer? If that complaint was never made the advert may well still be in circulation. Although, an advert is never truly gone; in the age of the internet YouTube is full of "Banned adverts" where users can watch the video over and over again. Yet YouTube doesn't have an regulation and can't control who watches the clip. For instance if I type banned adverts into YouTube this is the first video to pop up.
Although they may not all be British, straight away I get a video on the top 10 funniest banned commercials. Proving that the advert is never truly gone if deemed unsuitable. As if only one person found it unsuitable before; the whole world can then access that advert and could cause more offence that way .Either way we have saw the problems with the ASAs regulation. 1) too much power in the consumers hand 2) Despite the efforts of banning an advert it will only reappear online, one of the biggest media mediums today.
(Image from)
Last of all in this summary section, before the big 3, lets take a look at OFCOM. They only deal with a product after it has been aired. Although it would be impossible to watch every single program this does cause problems. As it is shifting the power of regulation to the producers rather than the regulatory body themselves. Think of OFCOM as the supervisor, they deal with it when it goes wrong. If OFCOM could watch clips before they have aired then the Sachsgate and Frankie Boyle issues we looked at earlier would never of happened. However, it is fair to see that OFCOM cannot deal with all of the UK's TV and Radio; so how do you counter balance this? At this time OFCOM can only go on to work with the producers of the BBC , Channel 4 etc... to make sure TV and Radio is suitable for all.
Censorship
Censorship is the concept of blocking something from being read, heard or seen. For instance if you see someone swearing on TV it will be covered up by a bar of black or pixels. Some say the idea of censorship is a way of suppressing free speech; as some producers think that everyone should be able to access what they think and say. For instance when the BBFC makes films cut scenes for classification; this is also censorship.
This can be a good thing in order to protect the minors. As regulators need to have this in mind as you can easily upset a minor by the content in a film. For instance if a young child (age of 8) saw a brutal murder in a film; they may be petrified and scared for life. This is why acts will often work with the regulators to make sure no minor is exposes to unsuitable content. Censorship is also used to preserve the secrets of a country, such as military information, dangerous stunts in films for younger audiences may be censored to stop copy cat behavior. It also also prevents countries from having a political propaganda; I.E a film in the UK could heavily promote the Tory party. Last of all, it cuts out vulgar scenes and other themes that children may find upsetting.
Although, by the regulatory bodies using censorship it comes with negatives. The producers of the film may think the bodies are compromising there freedom of speech. As they deem the cut suitable to the film and an important message is being put across by its involvement. They may also see it as a dig at their talent. Either way the film maker does not agree on most cases when they are approached to remove sections of there film. For instance the director of the film "Summer of Blood" states: "I'm an outsider, so I can do whatever I want." - Onur Tukel. However, you can see why the BBFC do it with an interest in preventing harm and offence to the audience. Mainly children though. The BBFC also state they do try and avoid cutting films. Some viewers will also follow the idea of self censoring. As not everyone likes the same things and has different tastes and decency. For example someone who doesn't like a lot of horror films will strive to stay away from them and go for a genre of their liking. Although, children cannot make this decision as they are not wise and mature enough to make these choices. Which is why PG and the 12A exist.
Another issue we looked at before is the idea of the internet. If a film or show is cut for a certain countries board then you can still access the original version online. And although the show will have been edited for the catch up services; the advert will still have caused offence the first time around. All the examples of banned and breached content we have looked at; came from YouTube. Which proves that you may be able to censor work but the original content is still out there. Children and teenagers under the age of 18 can also easily change their age online to access the content. If a teenager has an Amazon account then they could easily purchase the full sequence version of the Human Centipede 2 without going to the cinema. Which proves the BBFC useless outside of the cinema as younger audiences may purchase the film for themselves or get a parent to do it for them. Back in the day before the expansion of media and the internet the bodies would have an easier job at regulating the media. Although due to social media and the internet the uncensored versions of all content from regulatory bodies can be accessed at the click of a button.
Censorship is the concept of blocking something from being read, heard or seen. For instance if you see someone swearing on TV it will be covered up by a bar of black or pixels. Some say the idea of censorship is a way of suppressing free speech; as some producers think that everyone should be able to access what they think and say. For instance when the BBFC makes films cut scenes for classification; this is also censorship.
This can be a good thing in order to protect the minors. As regulators need to have this in mind as you can easily upset a minor by the content in a film. For instance if a young child (age of 8) saw a brutal murder in a film; they may be petrified and scared for life. This is why acts will often work with the regulators to make sure no minor is exposes to unsuitable content. Censorship is also used to preserve the secrets of a country, such as military information, dangerous stunts in films for younger audiences may be censored to stop copy cat behavior. It also also prevents countries from having a political propaganda; I.E a film in the UK could heavily promote the Tory party. Last of all, it cuts out vulgar scenes and other themes that children may find upsetting.
(Image from)
Although, by the regulatory bodies using censorship it comes with negatives. The producers of the film may think the bodies are compromising there freedom of speech. As they deem the cut suitable to the film and an important message is being put across by its involvement. They may also see it as a dig at their talent. Either way the film maker does not agree on most cases when they are approached to remove sections of there film. For instance the director of the film "Summer of Blood" states: "I'm an outsider, so I can do whatever I want." - Onur Tukel. However, you can see why the BBFC do it with an interest in preventing harm and offence to the audience. Mainly children though. The BBFC also state they do try and avoid cutting films. Some viewers will also follow the idea of self censoring. As not everyone likes the same things and has different tastes and decency. For example someone who doesn't like a lot of horror films will strive to stay away from them and go for a genre of their liking. Although, children cannot make this decision as they are not wise and mature enough to make these choices. Which is why PG and the 12A exist.
(Image from)
Another issue we looked at before is the idea of the internet. If a film or show is cut for a certain countries board then you can still access the original version online. And although the show will have been edited for the catch up services; the advert will still have caused offence the first time around. All the examples of banned and breached content we have looked at; came from YouTube. Which proves that you may be able to censor work but the original content is still out there. Children and teenagers under the age of 18 can also easily change their age online to access the content. If a teenager has an Amazon account then they could easily purchase the full sequence version of the Human Centipede 2 without going to the cinema. Which proves the BBFC useless outside of the cinema as younger audiences may purchase the film for themselves or get a parent to do it for them. Back in the day before the expansion of media and the internet the bodies would have an easier job at regulating the media. Although due to social media and the internet the uncensored versions of all content from regulatory bodies can be accessed at the click of a button.
The BBFC were also targeted for over censoring films in the past. With good examples being Straw Dogs which we looked at earlier. The BFFC also reduced films for their chances at producing copy cat behavior. Lets take a look at a copy cat behavior film a Clockwork Orange:
Clockwork Orange
After the release ,of Stanley Kubrick's 1971 "A Clockwork Orange" a series of violent crimes relating to murder and horrific activities occurred. As a result the film Kubrick took the film out of cinemas in 1973 and stated that it may only been seen after his death. In order for a British person to view the film you would have to buy a VHS from another country. In 1993 a cinema club in London screened the film without Kubrick's permission so Warner Bros sued them and caused them to become bankrupt. After his death in 1999 the film was re classified from a rating of an 18 by the BBFC. The film was brought back out in cinemas in 2000 and was brought out on DVD and VHS later that year. So the film wasn't available for the years between 1973 and 1999.
(Image from)
The series of crimes included a 16 year old boy murdering a tramp, another 16 year old who dressed like a gang member from the film stabbed a younger boy. The last one, was gang rape which involved a Dutch girl and a group of males from Lancashire who sang "Singin' in the Rain" whilst doing so. When the one of the 16 year old males was sentenced the judge described it as a "horrid trend ' caused by "this wretched film". Kubrick received death threats for this and got warned by the police to do something. So as a result it was kept from UK cinemas like we looked at earlier.
(Image from)
This didn't have a good effect though, as when it was released again it led to another spree of crimes. The most known one was by the "Clockwork Orange" gang. This was were a gang of youths were found guilty for killing a bar manager. Which was why the film was deemed that the movie inspired a copycat behavior due to the films overall content. Another film that was also band was the The New York Ripper from the years 1982-2002. Which to this day is still censored for its content.
(Image from)
The series of crimes included a 16 year old boy murdering a tramp, another 16 year old who dressed like a gang member from the film stabbed a younger boy. The last one, was gang rape which involved a Dutch girl and a group of males from Lancashire who sang "Singin' in the Rain" whilst doing so. When the one of the 16 year old males was sentenced the judge described it as a "horrid trend ' caused by "this wretched film". Kubrick received death threats for this and got warned by the police to do something. So as a result it was kept from UK cinemas like we looked at earlier.
(Image from)
This didn't have a good effect though, as when it was released again it led to another spree of crimes. The most known one was by the "Clockwork Orange" gang. This was were a gang of youths were found guilty for killing a bar manager. Which was why the film was deemed that the movie inspired a copycat behavior due to the films overall content. Another film that was also band was the The New York Ripper from the years 1982-2002. Which to this day is still censored for its content.
Consumer Choice
Consumer choice is the idea of the audience deciding what they want to watch. For instance, like I mentioned earlier we pick and chose what we want to watch. Take horror films for example, not everyone likes the concept so they strive away from them whilst others chose to watch them. Everyone is different. Which is why they feel that they should chose is suitable for themselves rather than have an external force from stopping them. Consumers may often want to see the uncut version of a film because they are curious to why it has been banned. Although the regulators set in place feel that is necessary to protect the public as a whole from "Video nasty's" and other things that could cause harm and offence.
.2.jpg)
(Image from)
Consumer choice also has an impact on the BBFC who look at what the public deem suitable. As you could see in the video.They state they do it by study groups, questionnaires and online surveys. Yet, by doing this who do they decided who takes part? For instance on the study group there might be a group that all think there is too much swearing in a 15 film. But because the whole group thinks this and not the entire UK; the BBFC might consider making the overall swearing down in a 15 film, or move films with lots of swearing into the 18 rating. In order to get a full picture of what the public overall taste and decency is they should make everyone fill out an online survey every 4-5 years. Although it would take longer to get through the results; it would represent Britain as a whole.
There are plenty of examples where consumers have wanted to watch a film but because of cuts or ratings they have not been able to view the film. Take the Human Centipede 2, fans of the first film may of been wanting to what the next instalment because they enjoyed the first movie. Although, because it was refused until cut, fans had to wait a long time before it came to the UK. Yet if the choice of the consumer/ the encouragement to watch the film online instead kicks in; the regulatory bodies cannot stop you from doing so. Which defeats the idea of regulating the film if your only going to see the full version elsewhere. This can be said for television as well, if a younger person wants to watch a programme after the watershed they can easily go onto a catch up service and fake their age. Or again, watch it illegally online without having to check any ones person/ or being stopped by OFCOM.
(Image from)
Another example of when fans of been eager to see a film; is when younger fans of the Tomb Raider games wanted to view the Tomb Raider film. Although because of the 12 rating they were not granted access to the film in cinemas. The statement from the BBFC case study reads: "Interestingly, the only complaints that BBFC received about the category decision were from younger fans of the video games, who were restricted from seeing the film even at 12. Now, after the introduction of the 12A category in 2002, if parents wish to take mature younger children, they may do so at their own risk as long as they accompany them throughout the film. However if parents wish to take children under 12 years old to a 12A rated film, they should consider carefully the film's BBFCinsight before they do so, and also consider how robust the child is." So because younger audiences where feeling more mature the BBFC introduced the rule that if your with a parent the movie is fine to see.
So take 50 Shades of Grey, there will of been fans of the book who are under the age of 18 and would of liked to see the film. Yet because the rules are strictly 18 or over only they are not allowed. What is interesting though is the way Americas age ratings go:
(Image from)
Which is the following R category. The film received this rating which meant younger audiences of the film could go and see the film if they wanted; as long as they were with a parent. Which grants the consumer more choice in taste and decency. The reason is received an R is because: "MPAA did give the film an R rating, basing its decision on "strong sexual content including dialogue, some unusual behaviour and graphic nudity, and language." So in terms of the UK's regulatory bodies, why can't we have an 18A or a 15A? Which gives the consumer a choice on whether they think they are mature enough to witness the film. This also means they would have to go through there parents as well, which would include serious conversation on whether they are ready to watch the film.
Freedom of information
(Image from)
Freedom of information is an extension to the idea of freedom of expression/speech. This speech can be expressed through several mediums, from speaking, writing and publishing etc.. etc.. This applies to media because the producers will be expressing there thoughts and opinions into the film. As it could be something that is close to their hearts and there views on a theme they are expressing could be a big talking point. For instance if they were making a film on abortion, they could present the topic in an way of there liking. but mainly to what they see it as. Although, because there views may not be deemed as suitable; regulatory bodies will come into action and either ask for cuts or the removal of the work. This can be applied to all forms of media we have looked at, a newspaper story could be exploring why drink driving is the right thing to do; because that's the expression of one person. Which is how censorship and consumer choice relate to this idea. "Evading people who are trying to shut you up is just part of filmmaking." - Kel O'Neill & Eline Jongsma creators of Empire.
(Image from)
Freedom of information is slightly different, this is the case of the viewer/public having the right to know information. So for instance if a cut is made to a film, there rights would allow them to go and see the uncut version. But because of the regulatory bodies this is prohibited as they are trying to protect the public as a whole and not focus on the likes of one person. Which can get film makers/producers annoyed and upset. As they feel there rights are not being catered for and that the regulatory bodies does not see them as adults who can watch what they like.
Russel Brand
(Image from)
For instance, in Sachsgate, Russel Brand would of thought what he has to say is a part of his freedom of speech. He can give his honest opinion and say what he likes about others underneath the human rights act. Although, not everyone who has the same taste and decency agreed with him, which lead to the show being submitted to Ofcom for inspection.As not only viewers complained, but Andrew Sachs himself. And, because of the guidelines, Russel Brand and Johnathan Ross were punished as a result. Although, the right legal thing had been done; the pair were limited to there freedom of expression when it didn't appear again on the radio. Although, the fans who wanted freedom of information, managed to get a hold of the radio clip on Youtube. Which begs the question, should they have been punished? If everyone has the right to freedom of speech, then why can't people deal with what people say? Which brings up the point of, are regulatory bodies too strict? Should they adapt there guidelines to count for peoples own opinions and thoughts to which they can express due to their rights?
Human Centipede 2 Fans
(Image from)
We already saw earlier that the film needed over 2 minutes of cuts where made before being allowed into the cinema. Because it was a big deal, the media covered this quite alot so fans would of been easily able to follow whats going on with the film. If they liked the first film, which was deemed vial, then they would of been interested in the second film. They might also be curious to what scenes have been cut from the final film. They might also want to see the uncut version as they have freedom of information. Although, in the cinemas the BBFC wouldn't grant that right as they were trying to protect the public as a whole. Leaving the select few out of luck, until the uncut version was released on DVD. But should the BBFC have shown the uncut version? If the same audience is going to go and buy the DVD, then how are they preventing others from the cut scenes? This builds on the point relating to Ofcom, should the bodies be more aware of those who want to see this kind of content more than those who don't. The BBFC will put warnings in place on their insights page, so why can't they list any distressing or upsetting scenes in that description so the audience can make the choice on whether they go see it or not. This way it relies on self regulation, rather than the regularity bodies cutting it off from the public.
Consumer Choice
Consumer choice is the idea of the audience deciding what they want to watch. For instance, like I mentioned earlier we pick and chose what we want to watch. Take horror films for example, not everyone likes the concept so they strive away from them whilst others chose to watch them. Everyone is different. Which is why they feel that they should chose is suitable for themselves rather than have an external force from stopping them. Consumers may often want to see the uncut version of a film because they are curious to why it has been banned. Although the regulators set in place feel that is necessary to protect the public as a whole from "Video nasty's" and other things that could cause harm and offence.
Consumer choice also has an impact on the BBFC who look at what the public deem suitable. As you could see in the video.They state they do it by study groups, questionnaires and online surveys. Yet, by doing this who do they decided who takes part? For instance on the study group there might be a group that all think there is too much swearing in a 15 film. But because the whole group thinks this and not the entire UK; the BBFC might consider making the overall swearing down in a 15 film, or move films with lots of swearing into the 18 rating. In order to get a full picture of what the public overall taste and decency is they should make everyone fill out an online survey every 4-5 years. Although it would take longer to get through the results; it would represent Britain as a whole.
There are plenty of examples where consumers have wanted to watch a film but because of cuts or ratings they have not been able to view the film. Take the Human Centipede 2, fans of the first film may of been wanting to what the next instalment because they enjoyed the first movie. Although, because it was refused until cut, fans had to wait a long time before it came to the UK. Yet if the choice of the consumer/ the encouragement to watch the film online instead kicks in; the regulatory bodies cannot stop you from doing so. Which defeats the idea of regulating the film if your only going to see the full version elsewhere. This can be said for television as well, if a younger person wants to watch a programme after the watershed they can easily go onto a catch up service and fake their age. Or again, watch it illegally online without having to check any ones person/ or being stopped by OFCOM.
Consumer choice is the idea of the audience deciding what they want to watch. For instance, like I mentioned earlier we pick and chose what we want to watch. Take horror films for example, not everyone likes the concept so they strive away from them whilst others chose to watch them. Everyone is different. Which is why they feel that they should chose is suitable for themselves rather than have an external force from stopping them. Consumers may often want to see the uncut version of a film because they are curious to why it has been banned. Although the regulators set in place feel that is necessary to protect the public as a whole from "Video nasty's" and other things that could cause harm and offence.
(Image from)
There are plenty of examples where consumers have wanted to watch a film but because of cuts or ratings they have not been able to view the film. Take the Human Centipede 2, fans of the first film may of been wanting to what the next instalment because they enjoyed the first movie. Although, because it was refused until cut, fans had to wait a long time before it came to the UK. Yet if the choice of the consumer/ the encouragement to watch the film online instead kicks in; the regulatory bodies cannot stop you from doing so. Which defeats the idea of regulating the film if your only going to see the full version elsewhere. This can be said for television as well, if a younger person wants to watch a programme after the watershed they can easily go onto a catch up service and fake their age. Or again, watch it illegally online without having to check any ones person/ or being stopped by OFCOM.
(Image from)
Another example of when fans of been eager to see a film; is when younger fans of the Tomb Raider games wanted to view the Tomb Raider film. Although because of the 12 rating they were not granted access to the film in cinemas. The statement from the BBFC case study reads: "Interestingly, the only complaints that BBFC received about the category decision were from younger fans of the video games, who were restricted from seeing the film even at 12. Now, after the introduction of the 12A category in 2002, if parents wish to take mature younger children, they may do so at their own risk as long as they accompany them throughout the film. However if parents wish to take children under 12 years old to a 12A rated film, they should consider carefully the film's BBFCinsight before they do so, and also consider how robust the child is." So because younger audiences where feeling more mature the BBFC introduced the rule that if your with a parent the movie is fine to see.
So take 50 Shades of Grey, there will of been fans of the book who are under the age of 18 and would of liked to see the film. Yet because the rules are strictly 18 or over only they are not allowed. What is interesting though is the way Americas age ratings go:
(Image from)
Which is the following R category. The film received this rating which meant younger audiences of the film could go and see the film if they wanted; as long as they were with a parent. Which grants the consumer more choice in taste and decency. The reason is received an R is because: "MPAA did give the film an R rating, basing its decision on "strong sexual content including dialogue, some unusual behaviour and graphic nudity, and language." So in terms of the UK's regulatory bodies, why can't we have an 18A or a 15A? Which gives the consumer a choice on whether they think they are mature enough to witness the film. This also means they would have to go through there parents as well, which would include serious conversation on whether they are ready to watch the film.
Freedom of information
(Image from)
Freedom of information is an extension to the idea of freedom of expression/speech. This speech can be expressed through several mediums, from speaking, writing and publishing etc.. etc.. This applies to media because the producers will be expressing there thoughts and opinions into the film. As it could be something that is close to their hearts and there views on a theme they are expressing could be a big talking point. For instance if they were making a film on abortion, they could present the topic in an way of there liking. but mainly to what they see it as. Although, because there views may not be deemed as suitable; regulatory bodies will come into action and either ask for cuts or the removal of the work. This can be applied to all forms of media we have looked at, a newspaper story could be exploring why drink driving is the right thing to do; because that's the expression of one person. Which is how censorship and consumer choice relate to this idea. "Evading people who are trying to shut you up is just part of filmmaking." - Kel O'Neill & Eline Jongsma creators of Empire.
Freedom of information is slightly different, this is the case of the viewer/public having the right to know information. So for instance if a cut is made to a film, there rights would allow them to go and see the uncut version. But because of the regulatory bodies this is prohibited as they are trying to protect the public as a whole and not focus on the likes of one person. Which can get film makers/producers annoyed and upset. As they feel there rights are not being catered for and that the regulatory bodies does not see them as adults who can watch what they like.
Freedom of information is an extension to the idea of freedom of expression/speech. This speech can be expressed through several mediums, from speaking, writing and publishing etc.. etc.. This applies to media because the producers will be expressing there thoughts and opinions into the film. As it could be something that is close to their hearts and there views on a theme they are expressing could be a big talking point. For instance if they were making a film on abortion, they could present the topic in an way of there liking. but mainly to what they see it as. Although, because there views may not be deemed as suitable; regulatory bodies will come into action and either ask for cuts or the removal of the work. This can be applied to all forms of media we have looked at, a newspaper story could be exploring why drink driving is the right thing to do; because that's the expression of one person. Which is how censorship and consumer choice relate to this idea. "Evading people who are trying to shut you up is just part of filmmaking." - Kel O'Neill & Eline Jongsma creators of Empire.
(Image from)
Freedom of information is slightly different, this is the case of the viewer/public having the right to know information. So for instance if a cut is made to a film, there rights would allow them to go and see the uncut version. But because of the regulatory bodies this is prohibited as they are trying to protect the public as a whole and not focus on the likes of one person. Which can get film makers/producers annoyed and upset. As they feel there rights are not being catered for and that the regulatory bodies does not see them as adults who can watch what they like.
Russel Brand
For instance, in Sachsgate, Russel Brand would of thought what he has to say is a part of his freedom of speech. He can give his honest opinion and say what he likes about others underneath the human rights act. Although, not everyone who has the same taste and decency agreed with him, which lead to the show being submitted to Ofcom for inspection.As not only viewers complained, but Andrew Sachs himself. And, because of the guidelines, Russel Brand and Johnathan Ross were punished as a result. Although, the right legal thing had been done; the pair were limited to there freedom of expression when it didn't appear again on the radio. Although, the fans who wanted freedom of information, managed to get a hold of the radio clip on Youtube. Which begs the question, should they have been punished? If everyone has the right to freedom of speech, then why can't people deal with what people say? Which brings up the point of, are regulatory bodies too strict? Should they adapt there guidelines to count for peoples own opinions and thoughts to which they can express due to their rights?
Human Centipede 2 Fans
(Image from)
For instance, in Sachsgate, Russel Brand would of thought what he has to say is a part of his freedom of speech. He can give his honest opinion and say what he likes about others underneath the human rights act. Although, not everyone who has the same taste and decency agreed with him, which lead to the show being submitted to Ofcom for inspection.As not only viewers complained, but Andrew Sachs himself. And, because of the guidelines, Russel Brand and Johnathan Ross were punished as a result. Although, the right legal thing had been done; the pair were limited to there freedom of expression when it didn't appear again on the radio. Although, the fans who wanted freedom of information, managed to get a hold of the radio clip on Youtube. Which begs the question, should they have been punished? If everyone has the right to freedom of speech, then why can't people deal with what people say? Which brings up the point of, are regulatory bodies too strict? Should they adapt there guidelines to count for peoples own opinions and thoughts to which they can express due to their rights?
Human Centipede 2 Fans
(Image from)
We already saw earlier that the film needed over 2 minutes of cuts where made before being allowed into the cinema. Because it was a big deal, the media covered this quite alot so fans would of been easily able to follow whats going on with the film. If they liked the first film, which was deemed vial, then they would of been interested in the second film. They might also be curious to what scenes have been cut from the final film. They might also want to see the uncut version as they have freedom of information. Although, in the cinemas the BBFC wouldn't grant that right as they were trying to protect the public as a whole. Leaving the select few out of luck, until the uncut version was released on DVD. But should the BBFC have shown the uncut version? If the same audience is going to go and buy the DVD, then how are they preventing others from the cut scenes? This builds on the point relating to Ofcom, should the bodies be more aware of those who want to see this kind of content more than those who don't. The BBFC will put warnings in place on their insights page, so why can't they list any distressing or upsetting scenes in that description so the audience can make the choice on whether they go see it or not. This way it relies on self regulation, rather than the regularity bodies cutting it off from the public.
.jpg?itok=7n3_J9mU){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment