Based on an article from Leamington Spa Today
See also Leamington Studio Artists

Leamington artist Neil Moore has accused the Pump Room gallery and museum of "blatant censorship" after it decided not to go ahead with a planned exhibition of his work.

Moore has lived in the town for 30 years and had his paintings displayed to critical acclaim across the UK and in Europe and America. The part-time lecturer at Warwickshire College is regarded as one of the district's more influential artists and teachers.

But his explicit figurative pieces, which he admits often possess a "ambiguity" and deal with "gender issues and issues of physical idealisation", were deemed inappropriate by Pump Room gallery managers.
A forthcoming exhibition, which Moore says was agreed with a previous curator, was pulled.

Accusing the gallery of nanny state-ism Moore said: I am perplexed by their decision as my work has often been exhibited in the gallery in group shows. The unelected guardians of public taste at the Pump Rooms, the manager Jeff Watkin and curator Chloe Johnson, are worried it may offend the delicate sensibilities of the people of Leamington.

The imagery, as you would expect from an artist, is sometimes challenging - but they were aware of this when I was encouraged to apply. Their patronising attitude amounts to blatant censorship and doesn't allow people of the district to make up their own minds.

I realise such decisions go through a hierarchy, but this is a recipe for asinine exhibitions in the future - and a battle I thought had been won at least half a century ago.

County council heritage and arts manager Watkin claimed the artist was never formally offered the showing - and that it was the age of some of the naked forms which prompted the decision: He met us and we had concerns about some of the images of young naked bodies. It's the kind of thing a commercial gallery would show, but we aim at a more family audience and suggested he need to think about providing fairly strong interpretation with the pieces to avoid it being inflammatory to our specific audience. These things are of course subjective.

From Martin Barker, to all readers of Melonfarmers:

Here is a very rare opportunity. We are doing some serious research into how audiences feel about, and respond to, films involving sexual violence. And we really want to include your views. If you don’t have time to read on through this message, then please at least notice this web address: www.extremefilmsresearch.org.uk

I think quite a few of you will know my name, and that I have long had an interest in issues around ‘effects’, and have been very critical of a lot of standard claims about this. Well, partly as an outcome of this, and of some other research I have done (on audience responses to Straw Dogs), we have gained the funding support to mount a research project from Aberystwyth into responses to five films which gave the BBFC pause for thought. In four cases they made cuts, of varying ‘strengths’. In the fifth case, they passed the film uncut. The five films are:

A Ma Soeur
Baise-Moi
House on the Edge of the Park
Ichi the Killer
Irreversible

The idea we pitched to the BBFC, was for a project to find out how actual (rather than possible or guessed at) audiences really felt about and responded to these films – and in particular, how they felt about the contribution that the scenes of sexual violence make to the films, and what differences any cuts made to the films. One part of this project involves the questionnaire which we have posted on a special website. We are not assuming you will have liked, or enjoyed, or approve of these films – in fact the whole point of the research is to try to get all kinds of responses to them. But whatever your views on them, it will help us greatly if you would complete the questionnaire, for as many of the five films as you have seen.

The BBFC have guaranteed that we can publish the findings of the research in any form that we choose. I will make sure that in due course we let everyone know, via Melonfarmers, where and how the findings will be published. The BBFC will listen to what we learn. It is then up to them if and how this influences their future policy on films of this kind. Our job is simply to make sure our research is strong and reliable.

So, please visit the research website and complete the questionnaire if you can – and tell other people, both in the UK and elsewhere.

Thanks very much

Martin

From The Telegraph

Ofcom is heading for a showdown with Brussels over plans for EU-wide regulation of the continent's €270bn (£180bn) telecoms industry.

The UK watchdog has been fearful for some time that the EU information society and media commissioner Viviane Reding wants to create a single, all-powerful telecoms industry regulator.

Last night she confirmed those plans.

Ofcom is known to be concerned about aspects of plans by the EU to regulate some content carried on the internet.

Many of Reding's proposals have sparked outrage among telecoms companies, who accuse her of being a populist who fails to listen to the industry.

Speaking two days before she officially unveils her plans to reform the industry, Reding's most controversial proposal was the creation of an independent European telecoms regulator to guide and instruct member states on how to apply EU rules: Variations of regulatory approach are today an obstacle to the internal market and to effective competition. The most effective way to achieve a real level playing field for telecom operators across the EU would of course be create an independent European telecom regulator that would work together with national regulators.

From CNET News

At a hearing before the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, politicians served up a dizzying slew of suggestions about what kind of new federal laws should be enacted.

The ideas were all over the map, and most were new. Only one or two have actually been turned into formal legislation so far, but politicians are vowing to take action in the very near future.

The following is a roundup of some of the proposals for new federal laws, rules or regulations that would target Americans in the name of child protection, if various members of Congress get their way.

• Forcibly blocking Web sites: Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, lauded a U.K. approach that involves compiling a list of illicit Web sites and using it to cordon off access to them.
   
• Eavesdropping on what Americans are doing online: Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, suggested surveillance might do the trick. One issue that keeps recurring is how these companies are monitoring communications that might reveal the contents are child pornography, she suggested.
   
• Making certain hyperlinks illegal: One antigambling bill in Congress a few years ago would have required companies to delete hyperlinks to offshore gambling sites. Now the idea is resurfacing. Who's able to link to which site...and how we filter that out is key, said Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican.
   
• Recording which customer is assigned which Internet Protocol address: Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican said he wanted to learn about ISP's retention policies for IP addresses in particular.
   
• Dispatching "search and destroy" bots: The idea of disrupting peer-to-peer networks surfaced in 2002 in the House of Representatives, and Sen. Orrin Hatch said a year later that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates. Now Rep. Walden has revived that idea, proposing that search and destroy bots be launched to scour the Internet for illicit content.
   
• Restricting naughty Webcams: Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican cited a New York Times article about an adolescent boy who charged customers to watch him perform erotic acts in front of his Web cam. We've heard about one Web site that had 140,000 images of adolescents from their Web cam.
   
• Recording e-mail correspondents and Web pages visited: Amazingly, even though we require telephone companies to keep records of telephone calls for 18 months...there is no federal law for Internet communications and there is no industry standard, said DeGette, the Colorado Democrat. DeGette has been a leading proponent in the House of Representatives of data retention and already drafted legislation making it mandatory for Internet providers and Web sites.
   
• Taking aim at search engines: Search engines were accused of selling sponsored links that relate to sex and minors. I have serious concerns about the adequacy of efforts by the search engine providers, said Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat.
   
• Letting government bureaucrats rate chat rooms: Video games and movies have ratings, so why not chat rooms, Rep. Stearns proposed.
   
• Permitting the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to send subpoenas to Internet providers: This idea came from Gerard Lewis, Comcast's deputy general counsel and chief privacy officer. A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act currently requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."
   
• Targeting peer-to-peer networks: Politicians have been talking about enacting new laws targeting P2P networks since early 2003. Now it may happen. Government reports have talked about finding child pornography on P2P networks, and Stupak said he wants to find a way to pull the plug: We have to find a way to block the peer to peer from person to person.
  
  Granting Internet censorship power to federal bureaucrats: Under the current U.S. legal system, only a judge can decide what's legally obscene or pornographic. Barton said the judicial process takes too long to rule in prosecutions of child pornography. Why is it not possible to immediately terminate that site? You have to have some agency of the government definitively say that is child pornography. Once that's established, why can't we immediately cut off that site? (That would avoid) waiting for a court to go out and convict the people operating the site.

First rate work from Ofwatch in getting Ofcom to reveal a little more about how they made the decision to ban R18s.

More details and commentary at Ofwatch

After pressure from Ofwatch, Ofcom have now published minutes from some of the key meetings to discussion the issue of R18s on TV.

25th Content Board meeting minutes
26th Content Board meeting minutes

As far as the Content Board minutes were concerned it would appear that there was considerable disagreement at Ofcom over what should have happen regarding the R18 issue:

The (non unanimous) recommendation of the executive was:

That the transmission of “R18” sex material was acceptable under Article 22(1) of the TWF Directive i.e. the transmission of such material might not ‘seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors’; and

That generally accepted security standards could be applied, so that members of the public would be adequately protected from offensive and harmful material.

But that the executive had decided not to make a recommendation on the third test whether people under the age of 18 could be protected by means of adequate security mechanisms.

The Content board was divided over the first point, agreed with the second point but after considerable, the Content Board agreed that the current level of protection available would not adequately protect people under the age of 18.

It was also noted that should the R18 ban be lifted that Ofcom would need to identify what level/form of protection would be required and that any such requirements would need to be potentially achievable by all broadcasters/platform providers.

On balance (although the Board was very evenly divided), the Content Board felt that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether or not the physical, mental or moral development of minors might be seriously impaired by the transmission of such material, and therefore until such evidence was available they should take a cautious approach to this issue.

The ideas mentioned above seem to have been adopted but now appear in a slightly different legislative vehicle.

From CNET News

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must slap warning labels on their pages or face prison terms of up to 15 years, according to a proposal adopted by a U.S. Senate committee on Tuesday.

During a day of debate on a wide-ranging communications bill, the Senate Commerce Committee approved an amendment backed by the Bush administration that proponents claim would help clean up the Internet and protect children online.

It says that commercial Web sites must not place "sexually explicit material" on their home pages upon pain of felony prosecution--and, in addition, they must rate each page or screen of the website that does contain sexually explicit material with a system to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission.

This will protect children from accidentally typing in the wrong address and immediately viewing indecent material, said Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican.

Civil libertarians have opposed the mandatory labeling proposal, saying it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Also, courts have taken a dim view of mandatory rating systems: In a 1968 case called Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Dallas' ordinance requiring that movies be rated was unconstitutional because the criteria for rating were unclear and vague.

Burns' seven-page amendment is virtually identical to a standalone bill introduced earlier this month by Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican. Both proposals follow from a speech in April during which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called on Congress to "promptly" enact such a law.

The entire communications bill won't become law unless it receives final approval by the committee and, later, the full Senate. It must also be reconciled with a House of Representatives version that differs in many respects, including having no Internet labeling requirements.

From Malaysia Sun

The nutter premier of Bavaria wants to change Germany's 130-year-old blasphemy law, removing a requirement that to be a crime it must disrupt public peace.

Edmund Stoiber, in an interview last week, said that he plans to bring up the subject during a meeting next month with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Not everything that's holy should be allowed to be trampled on, he said. Stoiber pointed to the row over a Danish newspaper's cartoons of Mohammed as an example of how blasphemy can cause trouble.

But there appears to be limited support for his proposal, Deutsche Welle reports.

Lutheran leaders openly oppose it, and civil libertarians say that even loose talk in a tavern could become a crime. Prosecutors say enforcement could be a nightmare.

Muslim leaders accused Stoiber of being an opportunist. Burhan Kesici, vice president of the Islamic Federation, said that Stoiber called for freedom of speech during the cartoon flap and is now trying to appeal to conservative voters in Bavaria.

From The Times

Under a draft law being reviewed by China’s top law-making body, the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, media outlets could face fines ranging from £3,500 to £7,000 if they do not seek permission from local authorities before reporting riots, disasters, strikes or outbreaks of disease.

Local governments will be required to disseminate information on emergencies in a timely manner, but it is an exception if the release of information may jeopardise the handling of emergencies.”

The official Xinhua news agency said the decision to introduce the law was made because of errors in handling the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) in 2003. It said: The Government’s inexperience in dealing with the emerging crisis led to one of the country’s most serious health hazards. Sars originated in China and the nation was widely condemned for covering up the disease initially, enabling the virus to spread more easily.

It had been expected that China’s censors would relax their controls to prevent a recurrence of that embarrassing incident. On the contrary, officials charged with vetting information available to the public have tightened their grip in recent months.

China has a long history of covering up emergency incidents, and news blackouts are regularly imposed because of official nervousness that bad news could harm the image of the ruling Communist Party. For example, the deaths of 85,000 people in the central province of Henan in 1975, when dams burst during a typhoon, were revealed only in a book on China’s worst 20th-century disasters in 1998.

From The Hindu

Pakistan has ruled out lifting its ban on Indian films but said it would permit foreign movies starring Indian and Pakistani actors to be screened in the country.

Foreign movies staring Pakistani and Indian stars would be permitted to be exhibited in Pakistan and the Pakistan Censor Code had been amended to facilitate such productions, Minister for Culture G.G. Jamal said.

However, Pakistan would not permit the exhibition of films made in India

So where is the midnight restriction in Ofcom's programme code? and where are the 'revised' guidelines published? The published guidelines allow free to air channels to broadcast 18 rated material after the 9pm watershed.

There is a new forum devoted to the UK free to air softcore channels at The Babewatch Forum

From Ofcom

Babeworld TV, 11 April 2006, 22:15

A viewer complained about the explicit sexual content of this channel, which is transmitted free-to-air on satellite TV.

Response

Babeworld said that it was unable to supply a recording of the relevant part of the channel’s output for 11 April 2006 . This was due to a technical failure by the company administering the channel’s compliance recordings.

Nevertheless, it acknowledged that some of the content carried before midnight on Babeworld was “too explicit for our market”. As a result, it had changed its production and editorial partners, and the output was now being produced to revised guidelines.

Babeworld also confirmed that it was now producing its own compliance tapes, and was no longer dependant on outside contractors.

Decision

We welcome the steps Babeworld has taken to avoid any future failure to supply recordings.

It is a condition of a Cable and Satellite Licence that the licensee retains recordings of its output for 60 days, and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recording from 11 April 2006 is a serious and significant breach of Babeworld TV’s licence. This will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 11

From BoingBoing
See Also Nart Villeneuve's report
And Rebecca McKinnon's report

Internet censorship tech-expert Nart Villeneuve reports that Skype's Chinese client (distributed by China-based provider TOM Online) installs censorware on the user's computer without telling. An important point: the international version of Skype available at Skype.com does not include the censorware. Nart says:

Skype's partner in China, Tom Online, has implemented filtering of Skype's text chat for Chinese users. Skype is not being transparent about the filtering fucntionality that has been introduced. Here is my initial attempt at trying to figure out Tom-Skype's filtering. Tom-Skype can be downloaded from skype.tom.com and I installed in in Chinese and English. I also installed the 2.5 beta version, all appeared to function the same. The tests [that follow in this blog-post] are from Tom-Skype 2.0 installed in English. The first thing I noticed is that Tom-Skype is bundled with an executable called ContentFilter.exe. It is an application developed by Tom Online called Tom Word Review. It is digitally signed by Skype.

Rebecca McKinnon examined the app, too, and wrote:

The bottom line is: TOM-Skype doesn't censor much at all, but it is set up to censor whatever TOM Online employees plug into their "keyfile," at any time. And users (unless they have attained Nart's level of geekdom) have no way of knowing what is going on and why.

Let's hope that TOM Online and Skype do the right thing, which is:

1. Inform users that censorware is being downloaded onto their computers along with the Skype-branded chat client, and inform users exactly which Chinese law requires that this must happen.
2. Do not add any political or religious words to the "keyfile" unless forced to do so by written court order.
3. Make a list of those words added to the "keyfile" available to users so that they can be informed that any messages containing those words will not be received.

So far the only term located in the banned word keyfile is 'fuck'.

Thanks to Alan

The website www.brenus.net/indexfr2.htm contains vidcaps of mainly French actresses in nude scenes.

It seems that an attempt is being made in France to close the site by accusing the webmaster of infringing the privacy of certain actresses! (Err, how many people saw the flicks in the cinema?) The court case is on Monday 26th June, so if the site's disappeared the worst has happened.

From Ofcom

The regulation of internet services is the subject of significant international debate. Consumers expect to be protected from fraud or other forms of harm; and their children protected from inappropriate content. To date, this protection has been provided largely through a framework of domestic and international statutory regulation which has been evolving for decades. However, the global reach and open nature of the internet gives rise to some well-known problems, which cannot be addressed by a translation of existing powers and structures. These problems include the ubiquitous availability of pornography and increased availability of illegal imagery (e.g. violent pornography, child abuse), and easier access to products and services otherwise tightly-controlled like gambling or prescription drugs.

As the UK communications regulator, Ofcom has oversight of the wholesale and retail markets for internet connectivity. We also have a statutory duty to promote media literacy, a role in encouraging audiences to connect to the internet, and in helping them learn how to manage the risks to which they are exposed when online. We therefore have a clear interest in the protection of consumers from harm when they use the internet. Furthermore, the current draft of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive proposed an extension of a broadcast-like regulatory framework to audiovisual content delivered in other ways – and might therefore require statutory content regulation to be applied to a broad range of internet services.

This document is a research report intended to inform the debate about the most appropriate ways to address the consumer protection challenges raised by the internet, such as those identified above. It is a broad survey of the key internet consumer protection issues and the national and international approaches taken to tackling those issues across the world. It does not include policy recommendations, though we do comment on the varying success of some of the initiatives adopted.

We can also draw some general lessons from the survey. There is no doubt that consumers will need to bear a greater degree of responsibility when they engage with internet services. Secondly, the broad range of internet services – from e-commerce to VoD to email – will require a broad and flexible set of regulatory solutions. There is no single answer to the issues to which the internet gives rise. However, there are already many factors contributing to consumer protection online, from the application of general law through to initiatives from individual internet players and collective industry bodies like the Internet Watch Foundation. We believe that such self-regulatory initiatives, allied to effective media literacy initiatives and supported by general law, will continue to be the most effective way to deliver consumer protection.

The full report can be downloaded from Ofcom

From Modbee

A media watchdog group protested the conviction of an Italian blogger for defamation, warning that such a verdict could lead to censorship of blogs in Italy.

Blogger Roberto Mancini, 59, was convicted of defamation last month in Aosta, northern Italy, and sentenced to pay $16,900 in fines and damages.

Four people, including two journalists, had filed a complaint against him over the content of his blog, which reports on local news in sarcastic and sometimes crude terms.

It looks like the blogger is being punished for his bad language and not because he posted false information, which is unacceptable, Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. The group also said Mancini wrongly was held responsible for comments posted by readers.

Mancini denies writing the incriminating comments, according to his defense lawyer, Caterina Malavenda. She said he would appeal the verdict.

According to court documents, messages posted on the blog made clear, unflattering references to the four who filed the complaint, in one case mentioning that one of them had taken part in a bank robbery.

Malavenda, Mancini's lawyer, argued that the author of the defaming pieces could not be identified with certainty. She said authorities had seized in a raid photographs that appear on the blog, books on blogging and passwords: All the material shows he can be someone who used the blog, but there's no evidence that he is the author of those defaming pieces

Reporters Without Borders added the complainants were not able to show (the reports) were untrue and warned that the verdict might induce people who manage blogs to censor messages posted by visitors.

From Refused Classification

The game version of Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs has just been banned by the Classification Board. This is the second game after Getting Up to be banned in 2006

The game is rated 18 for sale in the UK and is scheduled for an Autumn release. I notice that UK Amazon won't ship games to Australia. Good job we have a bit of people power with eBay otherwise the world's shops would be dominated by control freaks.

Based on an article from The Guardian

45 complaints that one of Sony's campaigns encouraged violent and anti- social behaviour among young people and objectified women have been dismissed.

The nationwide poster campaign, for the PlayStation Portable gaming device, used four lines: "Strong language and scenes of a sexual nature here", "Your girlfriend's white bits here", "Take a running jump here" and "Saucy emails won't get you fired here".

Nutters thought that the reference to sex and bad language was offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for children. Many of them predictably pointed out that the ads were near schools or bus stops and believed the campaign targeted young male teenagers.

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe's ad agency, TBWA/London, said that each of the campaign lines aimed to communicate different features of the PSP, including the ability to watch movies, view photos, play platform games and browse the internet wirelessly.

The agency added that each function was made prominent by an icon at the foot of each ad and that the irreverent tongue-in-cheek tone has always been part of PlayStation's strategy.

The Advertising Standards Authority said that while some complainants thought that the locations of the ads were unacceptable, they contained no explicit language or images likely to cause widespread offence or harm to children.

However, Sony did remove the ads from certain locations.

Based on an article from News.com.au

The search engines of two of China's most popular web portals are back in operation after they were upgraded to censor internet content even more repressively.

Authorities blocked the search engines of Sina.com and Sohu.com to try to increase their censorship facilities, website staff said.

Concerned government censors have been inspecting web portals including Sina and Sohu and others, a customer service employee at Sina said.

The Sina employee refused to specify what aspects of the search engine had been inspected. But on Tuesday Sina staff said the government was seeking to enhance the censorship capabilities to pre-empt supposedly "unhealthy" content.

Meanwhile Google has offloaded its minority stake in Baidu.com, China’s leading search engine. The sale of the stake comes two years after the Californian technology group bought a 2.6% holding in Baidu for about $60 million (£33 million), having paid $5 million for the holding in June 2004.

From BarLadies

The Thai authorities have added www.barladies.com to their ever expanding list of websites being blocked. Those using the ISP, True, were first to notice the blocking but no doubt the other ISPs will follow suit.

Even though Thailand claims to censor only such obvious sites as porn and gambling it is very worrying when they start on discussion forums.

Also will probably cause more people to seek out proxy services than it will end up blocking. On the other hand, the expats oriented website, Thai Visa, very quickly updated their policies to block the discussion of proxy services.

Based on an article from News.com.au

Following intense criticism from legislators, Australia’s Network Ten has pulled the plug on Big Brother—Adults Only, its late-night edition of the reality show.

TEN said the Big Brother franchise overall has been out-performing last year’s edition, and the axing of Adults Only does not affect the original show. In a statement, TEN noted, We are confident the show has complied with the Television Industry Code of Practice, and we have met all our undertakings. However, questions continue to be raised as to whether the show should be on air. We did not see that situation changing, regardless of how we treated the program, and that uncertainty was putting unfair pressure on our team. We have therefore decided the responsible and practical thing to do was conclude the show a few weeks early.

The series averaged about 1 million viewers each week.

From Reuters

A play about an American human rights activist who died in the Gaza Strip will now open in New York in October, six months after it was pulled from the schedule at another theater amid charges of censorship.

My Name is Rachel Corrie is a one-woman show based on the U.S. human rights campaigner killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003, trying to prevent demolition of a Palestinian building.

Producers Dena Hammerstein and Pam Pariseau said in a statement on Thursday the play would open at the off-Broadway Minetta Lane Theatre on Oct. 15, for a limited run to Nov. 19.

All very laudable but maybe they should think about applying it in the US first. There is absolutely no way that the US or any other Western Government would allow communications without keeping records etc. I would guess that the US Government already have a very cozy relationship with Google about control of Internet searches etc.

Based on an article from ZD Net

A congressional bill that would impose strict new obligations on American tech companies doing business with "Internet-restricting countries" like China has cleared its first hurdle to becoming law.

The Global Online Freedom Act, introduced in February by Rep. Christopher Smith, passed by a unanimous voice vote in the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that focuses on Africa, global human rights and international operations.

Smith proposed the bill just days after a daylong congressional hearing at which politicians lashed out at representatives from Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco Systems for compliance with China's state-sponsored censorship regime:The growth of the Internet and other information technologies can be a force for democratic change if the information is not subject to political censorship,

The concerns among politicians flared up after reports that, under pressure from the Chinese government, Microsoft had deleted a journalist's blog, Yahoo had turned over information leading to the conviction of at least one Chinese journalist, and Google was offering a restricted search service there.

The approved bill attempts to target those practices directly. Under its list of "minimum corporate standards," American businesses would be barred from keeping any electronic communication, such as e-mail, that contains personally identifiable information on servers or other storage facilities in "Internet-restricting countries." The rules would also prohibit them from turning over personal information about their subscribers to governments in those locales except for "legitimate law enforcement purposes."

All search engine providers would be required to give the U.S. State Department's Office of Global Internet Freedom a detailed breakdown of how their search results have been restricted or censored in such countries. All Web content hosts would have to supply a list of URLs that have been removed or blocked there.

Internet service providers could also face fines of up to $2 million per offense and imprisonment for blocking access to any U.S. government-sponsored Web site or content, such as Voice of America, in the blacklisted countries.

Although China has taken center stage, the bill says the rules would also apply to dealings with Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, Tunisia and Vietnam--along with any other country on which the U.S. government decides to bestow an "Internet-restricting" designation.

Based on an article from the Washington Post

Now playing on your Web-enabled cell phone: a PG-rated version of the Internet. As people increasingly listen to music, watch TV, and access the Web on their handsets, they notice significant content restrictions that don't exist on PCs.

Major U.S. wireless carriers have set censorial guidelines for their content partners, restricting or banning potentially offensive language, ringtones, games, and videos--including, in some cases words, such as lesbian or pictures of women in swimsuits. In informal tests of text and multimedia messaging, we found that messages containing adult images and vulgar language did not always show up on the intended recipient's handset.

Why the restrictions? Wireless carriers want to ward off nutter complaints--and regulation by the Federal Communications Commission, according to Julie Ask, an analyst with Jupiter Research.

Are cell phones next on the feds' censorship wish list? You'd better believe it, said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation .

CTIA , the wireless industry trade group, has proposed wireless content guidelines that encourage network operators to label, filter, and limit access to words, images, and even sounds that some adults may consider inappropriate for children. But wireless carriers are imposing restrictions even stricter than the rules that the FCC imposes on broadcast TV and radio.

In content available through its handsets, Verizon Wireless prohibits the use of obscene language as well as images or videos that depict "passionate kissing." The carrier has specific rules for how much bare skin models may show and for what titles of digital files people can download.

Anything you can access through your Verizon Wireless phone is appropriate for the entire family, says Verizon Wireless spokesperson Jeffrey Nelson.

Cingular Safe content guidelines, meanwhile, ban such words as words condom and lesbian along with images depicting or insinuating nudity or partial nudity. The guidelines, which Cingular distributes to its content-provider partners, cite theSports Illustratedswimsuit issue as an example of inappropriate material.

T-Mobile says that its standards for wireless content are on a par with those governing the covers of mainstream magazines displayed on newsstands.

Are carriers also censoring messages that one user sends to another? We sent a slew of R- and NC-17-rated text and images to handsets, using a variety of carriers, and found that some messages sent over Cingular and U.S. Cellular's networks did not reach their destination, or were changed in transit. Spokespersons for these carriers say that they don't censor text or multimedia messages.

However, messages do travel across numerous other network components outside U.S. Cellular, some of which may filter messages based on content, says Jonathan Guerin, U.S. Cellular spokesperson.

Cingular did not respond to our requests for an explanation of why images with mature-themed file names were replaced by a red X when they reached Cingular handsets.

Based on an article from The Guardian

South Africa's public broadcaster (SABC) has banned high-profile critics of the government from its programmes, demonstrating bias towards the ruling African National Congress.

At least six political analysts who have on occasion criticised the president, Thabo Mbeki, and his allies have been blacklisted on the grounds that they are ill-informed. The blacklist was drawn up by the head of news, Snuki Zikalala, an ANC member and former government spokesman who answers to a board appointed by an ANC-dominated parliamentary committee.

The decision followed several censorship rows that prompted accusations that the SABC had become a mouthpiece for the ANC. It ditched a documentary critical of the president and refused to show images of a cabinet minister being booed during a speech.

Based on an article from News.com.au

Late night antics on Channel 10's Big Brother program has again drawn the ire of nutter MPs.

Nutters in the Federal Government want to make it easier to force the show off air if it breaches broadcasting guidelines. The call came as Ten admitted that as many as 76,000 children could be watching Big Brother: Adults Only each week.

The show this week included high levels of nudity, simulated sex and discussions about masturbation, erections and sexual technique.

Not so Liberal MP Trish Draper yesterday said the Government needed to be able to take the adult show off the air within 48 hours if it broke censorship rules. Draper and National Party MP Paul Neville complained about the gratuitous nature of the program to Coalition colleagues at a joint party room meeting yesterday.

They said they were concerned it would take more than a month to have the adults-only version of Big Brother axed under existing rules if it breached MA+ guidelines.

Draper, who heads a parliamentary classifications committee, said she had asked Communications Minister Helen Coonan to examine the issue. We feel that ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) should be able to compel Channel 10 to sit down and go through the process immediately there are complaints, she said. Under existing rules, complaints must first be made to the TV network and are only taken to the ACMA if they are not resolved in 30 days.

A Ten spokeswoman said changes had been made this year to the adults-only version of Big Brother - formerly called Big Brother Uncut - to ensure it met MA+ requirements. But she admitted that about 8% of viewers, based on last year's figures, were under 18.

Changes to the show followed a storm of criticism last year after an episode in which a male housemate was filmed rubbing his genitals on a female housemate while giving her a massage. The spokeswoman said two censors examined each adults-only episode before it was aired.

Family First senator Steve Fielding said the late-night version of the program was rotting children's brains. Show me any mum or dad who would say this is good for their kids to watch, he said. Family First believes this is smut, the language is vulgar and it can distort our children's views about relationships.. [And those with rotted brains have clearly gone onto to become politicians and Family First campaigners]

From The Independent

Egyptian authorities have ordered the release of an award-winning blogger and activist, imprisoned 45 days ago on charges including insulting the President.

Alaa Seif al-Islam who was arrested at a pro-reform demonstration on 7 May, had drawn the ire of the authorities for his provocative weblog and taking part in banned street protests. He is expected to be released from the Tora prison in Cairo today.

The release comes after a turbulent period of protest and violence in Egypt. Practically all groups opposed to President Hosni Mubarak, including the Muslim Brotherhood and secular groups such as Kifaya! (Enough!) and Youth for Change have had members beaten. Hundreds have been arrested.

Alaa's wife, Manal, with whom he runs the website Manalaa.net, which won an award from the media freedom group Reporters Without Borders, said after the decision: There's no going back now, we'll definitely be continuing our activities.

Supporters highlight Alaa's importance in pushing the boundaries for political dissent through the internet. Nora Younis, a fellow blogger and activist, said: He raises the ceiling of what is possible. After others were arrested on charges of 'insulting the President', he arranged a petition on his site that said 'we, the undersigned, insult the President' - to be given to the Public Prosecutor.

From the Times of India

India's Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday quashed the ban on the film The Da Vinci Code, holding the state government's June 1 order as a highly irrational restriction on freedom of speech and expression.

Petitioners Sony Entertainment and the distributor Lakshmi Enterprises were also awarded costs of Rs 10,000 each.

Justice G Raghuram who delivered the order said the government had imposed the ban only because some individuals and organisations had demanded it.

It had not assessed the likely consequences of its decision and the authorities had not even bothered to see the film to arrive at an informed opinion, as is required under the law.

The judge also pointed out that an expert body like the Censor Board had cleared the film and there was no reason why the government should have taken a contrary view.

He also found untenable the state government's argument of breach of peace as the film was being screened in other parts of the country without any violence.

Special chief secretary (home) Paul Bhuyan said the government would respond to the quashing of the ban only after studying the court order.

Letter from Shaun to the BBFC

Dear Ms Clark,,

Please tell your director Mr. Cooke, that many people simply don't want your attempts at censorship of the internet...

I suppose he's looking for extra work and all that... In case it's decided that video classification in the form of censorship isn't really necessary.

BUT: In case you had not realised, the **Internet Watch Foundation** already has the job of internet censorship, and we don't want any more classification (which really means censorship) than that thank you very much.

Also people don't believe you, when you (you=the BBFC) say you will "just classify. " You will censor, and cut, like you have ALWAYS censored, and cut, with your big scissors.

But censorship is beloved of repressive regimes the world over.

How would you censor content on P2P ? It is content on OTHER people's computers, and changes all the time. What about stuff on foreign web sites? What would you do if a work was "beyond" R18 or something ?

Anyway exactly WHO would be paying for all this? Are you going to do for free, for your love of humanity and your desire to protect us all? I doubt it.

It'll be Internet users I suppose? By an extra "fee" or internet tax I suppose?

Well sorry but it simply isn't necessary and it isn't wanted.

Did you know that I've got two children aged 12, and 15 (next week) with a connection to an 8mbit broadband connection ? Do you also know that despite regular spot checks, I've never had to worry about anything they have seen, such as explicit sex, because currently they simply are not interested. The only things I would really worry about are chat groups. How would you classify those?

Parents on a broadband Home network (including wireless networks) can use VNC or similar programs to see exactly what their children are doing, using another machine. They can see a copy of the kid's desktop on another machine elsewhere in the house.

This is what I do. My kids can see when I am doing it (their icon changes colour) so I don't need or want the BBFC to pre-vet to protect my kids, when I can do it myself.

See: www.tightvnc.com

Based on an article from The Times

Kiss FM humiliated a man on air in a hoax that Ofcom says is its worst breach of privacy case. The Kiss FM breakfast show has been given the largest fine to be imposed on a British radio station for serious breaches of broadcasting rules. Emap Radio, the owner, was ordered to pay £175,000 for a hoax interview and failing to protect children from strong and sexually explicit language during the show, presented by the DJ Bam Bam who has now been fired.

Bam Bam, whose real name is Peter Poulton,  had 800,000 listeners. He was the London station’s star DJ for seven years but Ofcom, the independent regulator, found his show guilty of eight broadcasting code breaches in six months. One of his offences was appearing to condone group and under-age sex when children were listening.

The most serious breach was when Bam Bam’s assistant, Streetboy, posed as a human resources officer and made a hoax call to a man to discuss his redundancy options. The man became increasingly desperate as he was told that he was fit only for “flipping burgers”. When the item ended, the presenters were heard laughing and acknowledging that Streetboy had been dealing with this guy’s whole future and career.

Ofcom was angered that strong language was broadcast despite being pre-recorded. Kiss FM was out of control, with management unable or unwilling to monitor its output. The regulator accused Emap of totally inexcusable broadcasts, which showed an almost wilful disregard by the licensee for not only Ofcom’s codes but also the station’s audience.

But Ofcom was annoyed that Emap had not improved its performance after being fined £125,000 last year over offensive remarks made about the murdered Iraq hostage Kenneth Bigley on its Manchester station. This time it fined Emap £75,000 for the hoax call and £100,000 for the seven sex and language breaches. The money goes to the Treasury.

From Twin Cities

A DVD featuring violent pit bull fights has unleashed protests against the distributor as well as several online merchants that had been selling the video, which may break federal laws against animal cruelty.

Amazon.com, Circuit City and Best Buy said they would pull the video, Hood Fights, Vol. 2, The Art of The Pit from their Web sites as soon as possible.

The Humane Society of United States has asked U.S. Attorney Roger Roper III in Dallas to investigate whether Hood Fights 2 violates a federal law against interstate or foreign commerce profiting from the depiction of animal cruelty. The DVD was released in April by a Texas-based Web site, streetheatdvd.com

Hood Fights 2 shows a series of staged matches in which trained fighting dogs suffer bloody, debilitating injuries for the apparent amusement of spectators, wrote the Humane Society's Ann Chynoweth.

From The Guardian at Bobbie Johnson's Blog which also includes a lively dicussion

According to reports this morning, the BBFC says it envisages being able to censor what is on the net.

In its annual report, the BBFC says it may be worth having a voluntary system of rating - spinning off from its rankings of U, PG, 12A, 15 and 18 - that can help people surf the web safely.

According to the Times, it says: No one should assume that such material will be confined to established platforms such as film and DVD. Whether in a regulatory or an advisory capacity, we believe we have unique expertise and experience to offer.

Outrageous, cry the web's hordes. Freedom is our watchword, and we will not bow to censors.

It's a laudable position, of course, but one that's not entirely true. Censorship already abounds on the net - just ask Google in China or go back to Yahoo's continental court case about the sale of Nazi memorabilia. We accept some forms of censorship, where appropriate, and in many ways the BBFC recommendations are in this mould.

Web pages and content have the ability to contain tags that promote an age rating. Parents can already employ web monitors like NetNanny to shepherd their children online and block unsavoury or unwanted information. Why not just crank up the regulation and make sure that every site has a rating?

The problem with such schemes, of course, is that the internet is a global phenomenon. How do you enforce censorship across nations? If you force any material hosted on British servers to carry advisory ratings, then some people would just move elsewhere (it's very easy to do). And if you don't enforce the rules, then those who do want to exploit them will just plough ahead and lie, or avoid the ratings altogether.

The ultimate problem, though, is how to regulate what people do in their own homes; how parents interact with technology and with their kids. While it's clear that an 18 certificate for a movie in a cinema stops a seven-year-old child watching the movie on the big screen, the private situation is far from clear. How effective, after all, is the 9pm watershed? How many pre-teens have watched 18-rated DVDs at home? How many kids play Grand Theft Auto with their parents' consent?

Even recent attempts to solve the conundrum have fallen foul of the very people who would welcome the BBFC's comments. When the porn industry suggested a .xxx domain name to house adult material (easily spotted by nanny programmes and blocked by parents), it seemed like a fair idea, but it was shot down by the Christian right - the same people who would no doubt welcome the BBFC's proposals. Why? Because pornography should never be legitimised, and creating a .xxx suffix would do exactly that.

So we're stuck in a world where the veto goes to those who want to have their cake and eat it while ideas are flung about for forcing new rules on producers and consumers alike. Any net censorship would be expensive and almost certainly unsuccessful - and in any case, it would be far easier and cheaper to teach people how to use the tools that already exist. But that would just be too simple, wouldn't it?

Based on an article from IT Week

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the shameful BBFC said that people recognised that the internet may not be regulated, ...BUT... expected certain types of content such as films to have passed through a classification process.

The BBFC knew of at least one distributor who sees video-on-demand as a way of getting around its controls on pornography: This guy has stated that he will be putting stuff out which the BBFC will not classify. He has to be prosecuted to stop that. [It should be pointed out that BBFC are censoring and cutting hardcore porn for a whole load of nonsensical reasons such as the the vague possibility that ice or a dildo may possibly cause harm if used in a whacky way by complete imbeciles. The BBFC view on what should be cut is proving near worthless and surely does not automatically infer that the cut material is obscene and liable to prosecution].

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has set up an inquiry into new media and the creative industries, which Clark hoped would lead to legislation or the introduction of a voluntary industry agreement: We have not asked the government to consider this because we think that it necessarily needs legislation. It may be that the industry signs up to a voluntary system. [As far as I can see the creative industries committee is unsurprisingly more concerned with licensing, IPR, DRM, piracy etc rather than worrying about censorship concerns of nutters and film censors facing redundancy]
 

From The Guardian

Video content on the internet could receive certificate 18-style classifications from film censors under plans submitted to the government today. The proposals could see web videos rated for language, violence, sex and themes in the same way as films, videos and DVDs.

The BBFC said the huge growth of online video content risked making the regulation of old media redundant as more and more people get access to video over the internet.

Internet video has mushroomed in recent years, with the spread of broadband and content-streaming technologies making downloading high-quality footage easier. The video site YouTube sees 35,000 new clips added and 30m clips downloaded every day, while it would take almost 500 years to watch all the content currently indexed by Blinkx, which claims to be the largest online video search engine.

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the shameful BBFC, said the government should be looking at ways of providing information to online viewers about the sort of material they were being exposed to: If there's some sort of standardised labelling system that people understand, then they know that it's material they can trust.

We don't want to go down the route of cutting and banning things and blocking sites...BUT... a lot of the content that's out there on the internet is not something the majority of people would want to view. [...Which they WILL of course cut and ban...] She cited the example of Terrorists, Killers and Middle East Wackos, a compilation of video clips of actual killings and terrorist attacks. The compilation is banned on video or DVD in the UK because the BBFC believed it to contravene the Obscene Publications Act, but it is freely available on the internet through file-sharing sites.

And for an organisation that doesn't want to go down the route of cutting and banning things, it has been reported that 27% of 18 certificate (sex) video works have been censored in 2006, along with 23% of R18’s.

The BBFC wrote to the department of culture, media and sport last month, asking the government to consider a system of classification. It said that the most likely scenario would see them advising companies providing video content on what material would be acceptable to viewers. [BOLLOX BBFC, you mean acceptable to the Government and to people who like to impose their views on others about what they should be watching. Eg spanking videos are obviously acceptable to informed viewers that choose to watch them, they are only not acceptable to people who would rather you did not watch them. ie the Government, nutters and censors!]

From ABC

The federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, says the states and territories need to take more responsibility for stopping the supply of unclassified pornographic and violent videos to Indigenous communities.

Delegates at yesterday's national forum to discuss violence and sexual abuse said the videos were pouring into communities and there is concern some Aboriginal people are emulating what they see on film.

Philip Ruddock says more needs to be done to track down the people supplying the material: If you have to go into Indigenous communities to get the evidence and to use that as part of the evidence trail, then so be it. That's the responsibility of police, and in relation to community policing, those responsibilities rest clearly with the states and territories.

From The Times

The Times has picked up the above story and added a couple of comments:

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, which campaigns for freedom of expression said It sounds like the most stupid intervention since the registration of fax machines and photocopiers in communist China.

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the board, said that people should be able to make informed choices about what to watch. Regulation, in this case, doesn’t mean banning or cutting. It is about providing information.

From Media Week

The Advertising Standards Authority has cleared Xfm over an ad campaign featuring toddlers dressed up like Noel and Liam Gallagher, with one of the children making a V sign with his fingers.

The authority received 23 complaints regarding the posters on the grounds of offence. Some people were also worried it would encourage children to copy the gesture.

However the ASA ruled in favour of Xfm. It said: We considered that the gesture of the toddler was synonymous with Liam Gallagher and that anyone familiar with Oasis would realise that and were likely to find the parody humorous.

The ad promoted the launch of Xfm Manchester 97.7 and used the strapline “A new station is born”.

From Silicon

Operators of commercial websites with sexually explicit content would have to post warning labels on each offending page or face imprisonment under a new proposal in the US Senate.

Caving in to earlier demands from the US Department of Justice, the proposed law focuses on a medley of new penalties related to child pornography and other sexual content on the internet.

The bill, which is called the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act, or Internet Safety Act, beefs up the Justice Department's suggested penalties for negligent web labellers. It would impose up to 15 years in prison - an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal - on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves.

The bill would also create a new crime out of using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful material on the internet. Conviction would carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. A similar sentence would apply to anyone who knowingly embeds words or images in the source code of their sites with the intention of deceiving minors into viewing "harmful" content.

The proposal drew criticism from civil liberties advocates, who said it presents enough ambiguities to prompt self-censorship of web content.

David Greene, director of a free-speech advocacy group called The First Amendment Project, said: Whether artistic works or political commentary or any type of images that may arguably come close to this category, people may not publish them for fear of being sent to jail for 15 years.

It's equally unclear how to draw the line between "commercial" websites, covered by the regulations, and "non-commercial" sites, which appear to be exempt, the bill's critics said.

The Internet Safety Act pulls its definition of sexually explicit material from existing federal law. It covers sexual intercourse of all types: bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

In practice, however, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly - in one case courts ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear.

The Senate proposal grants just one reprieve: sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large website do not have to be labelled.

From The Times

A British artist is facing up to three years’ jail in Turkey for exhibiting a collage that depicts its Prime Minister as a dog being awarded a rosette by President Bush in a pet show.

Police in Istanbul seized Michael Dickinson’s Best in Show — in which he superimposed the head of Recep Tayyip Erdogan on to a dog’s body — from his exhibition in the city.

He has been told that he is likely to be charged with insulting the dignity of the Prime Minister. The show’s organiser, Erkan Kara, will go on trial on September 12 on the same charge.

Dickinson said: It’s such an Alice in Wonderland feeling. The law is so absurd . . . This law exists in Turkey about insulting ‘Turkishness’ or the State. You’re not allowed to state your opinion.

The case could greatly embarrass Turkey and Britain, for it raises questions about Turkey’s human rights record as it seeks EU membership, with Tony Blair’s backing.

Dickinson has lived in Turkey for 20 years, teaching English at Yeditepe University. His exhibition was staged in Istanbul by the Global Peace and Justice Coalition. The collage, hung with anti-war images, refers to the Prime Minister having taken legal action over cartoons depicting him as various animals.

Charles Thomson, of the Stuckist art movement, to which Dickinson belongs, has told Blair that it is intolerable for an EU applicant to censor political comment: I trust you will communicate your strongest condemnation and ask for this case to be abandoned, he wrote, urging Blair to oppose Turkey’s EU membership until it changes its stance on human rights.

Thomson has also written to Olli Rehn, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, saying that in the Union the collage would be considered acceptable free expression.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said: Everybody will have to wait and see whether the court decides if this is about freedom of expression or not. A spokesman said that Turkey’s laws should be respected and suggested that the international community was too hasty in condemning it.

From CNET News

Reporters Without Borders has issued a report finding that of the major Internet search engines operating in China, Yahoo censored more terms in a limited test it conducted.

The group used six terms, including "Falungong," "Tibet Independence" and "Democracy," and noted what the first 10 results were on the Chinese sites of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and the local Baidu.com. While there is no official published list of banned terms provided by the Chinese government, the companies are believed to follow the same general guidelines.

While yahoo.cn censors results as strictly as baidu.cn, search engines google.cn and the beta version of msn.cn (beta.search.msn.com.cn) let through more information from sources that are not authorized by the authorities, Reporters Without Borders said.

The press freedom organization is particularly shocked by the scale of censorship on yahoo.cn. first because the search results on 'subversive' key words are 97 percent pro-Beijing, the group said. It is therefore censoring more than its Chinese competitor Baidu.

Reporters Without Borders called on search engines operating in what it said were "repressive" countries to refuse to censor protected content, such as information about human rights and democracy.

From the Bangkok Post

Vietnam's communist government has issued strict new press regulations that punish "denying revolutionary achievements" and require journalists to have articles reviewed before publication, officials and state media said Friday.

The new Decree on Cultural and Information Activities follows aggressive reporting in Vietnam's state-controlled press of a massive corruption scandal that forced the resignation of the transport minister and the arrest of his deputy over embezzlement of some 7 million dollars in state funds.

The press regulations came even as Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, in a speech to the National Assembly before his retirement, called for measures to ensure transparency and openness of state agencies. But added that the people's right to be informed must be clearly regulated.

Such regulations will be strengthened with the new degree that Khai signed in June and set to take effect July 1. Under the new rules, Vietnamese journalists can be fined 3 million dong (190 dollars) for publishing stories with anonymous sources and up to 7 million dong (450 dollars) for refusing to allow an interviewee to read an article before publication.

Disseminating reactionary ideology is banned, along with any articles that reveal Party secrets, state secrets, military secrets and economic secrets, which carry fines of up to 30 million dong ( 2,000 dollars).

Vietnam already has criminal laws on the books that punish "revealing state secrets" with up to 15 years in prison. Vietnamese journalists can also be fined for defaming national heroes, although the decree does not spell out who is a national hero.

Vu Xuan Thanh, head of the Ministry of Culture and Information Inspection Department, said the ministry would decide which national figures are considered heroes and said that the law would not be used to shield government officials from legitimate criticism.

A spokesman in Paris for the press freedom advocacy group Reporters Without Borders condemned the new press regulations as a step backward for Vietnam. In a period where we felt that something may be changing in this country, because a few journalists started investigating on corruption scandals, this is a very bad news, said RWB's Julien Pain.

From AVN

President Bush toady signed a bill calling for an increase in fines for broadcasters who violate indecency regulations from $32,500 to $325,000.

We must ensure that decency standards for broadcasters are effectively enforced, Bush told a crowd during a bill signing ceremony at the White House. That’s the duty of the FCC. That’s why we’ve got the chairman standing right here.

By law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels are prohibited from airing obscene material at any time. They also may not air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. which is considered a period when children may be watching or listening.  Cable and satellite broadcasts are exempt from such rules.

According to the FCC, indecent material is defined as that which contains sexual or excretory material that is not deemed obscene.

From AVN

Televisions stations affiliated with CBS Corp. have asked the FCC to drop a $3.3 million fine for alleged violations of federal broadcast standards for indecent content.

At issue is a fine levied by the agency against the network and its affiliates for airing a 2004 episode of the show Without a Trace which involved references to a teenage orgy and flashback sequences of young people in sexually suggestive positions, but with no nudity.

The affiliates said in their appeal to the agency that none of the e-mailed complaints to the FCC were from actual viewers but were instead e-mails sent by members of the conservative groups Parents for Television Council and from the American Family Association.

The stations cited the fact that the episode was a repeat airing of a show that drew no complaints when it was originally aired.

The FCC had fined each of the 103 CBS stations $32,500 for allegedly showing broadcast material graphically showing teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy.”

About 8.2 million people saw the Dec. 31, 2004 episode, but complaints about the show did not begin arriving at the FCC until Jan. 12.