No one wins when the law looks like an ass. Like an overrun teacher whose barely audible “Silence!” is drowned out by a cacophonous class, British law is currently prohibiting the publication of names that everyone knows.

The High Court order prohibiting the naming of a minor royal involved in an alleged sex-and-drugs blackmail plot is effectively useless because the name is only two seconds away from anyone with access to the internet and possessing the search skills of most British children. Similarly, the alleged killer of the murdered schoolboy Rhys Jones has been named on the website YouTube, although police have been attempting to get the name removed.

The current stance of English law, prohibiting the publication of information that anyone can access, is unsustainable. To command respect, the law needs to enjoy the confidence of the public. The law must not look daft. It thrives or wilts according to its acceptance by the public.

The standards that UK law wants to impose are, in fact, very sensible and for the public good. If a law court wants to prevent the victim of an alleged blackmail plot from becoming public (and remember, blackmail is a serious crime) that is a mark of a civilised society. If, to ensure a killer gets convicted following a fair trial, the law wants to stop prejudicial material about him from being aired in public, again that is a sensible rule. It’s not a convincing and rational answer for us to say yes, but the whole world has lurched into an informational free-for-all now, so let’s just slide down this spiral into chaos with the rest of the world

...

The internet age will need to develop a new set of laws to reflect global village life. That will be an acute challenge because different cultures have fundamentally different ideas about such things as freedom of expression, fair trials and the protection of reputation. But democratic control and policing of the internet according to a set of agreed international laws will be no more challenging than many things we already do every day such as international trade..

Dr Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood has weighed in on the release Manhunt 2.

In a press release, Linn said:

Tomorrow’s release of Manhunt 2 epitomizes much of what’s wrong with the videogame industry’s current system of self-regulation.

Research clearly demonstrates that playing violent videogames can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior in children and youth. Yet even as the industry claims it wants to keep its most violent games out of the hands of children, it virulently opposes any legislation that would give teeth to its often unenforced guidelines for sales and marketing of M-rated games.

California State Sen. Leland Yee (D), architect of his state’s contested video game law, has also issued a press release:

Not surprisingly, this game is being released on Halloween. Halloween already presents many safety concerns for parents. With the release of Manhunt 2, parents will now face a new challenge from the purveyors of violence.

It is imperative that parents avoid purchasing this game for their children and always review the video games their children are playing. Ultra-violent, interactive video games such as Manhunt 2 can have negative effects on our children.

If the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee were to go through, you might as well pull the shutters down on the net in the country, because the committee seeks to raise the liability of internet service providers for any third party content in a manner that it will become difficult to run the service and stay away from jail.

Over 85% of internet deals with third party content. This includes search engines, mail services, messengers, blogs, communication and community sites. If they were to be held responsible for the sites searched, mails sent, blogs filed or scraps on community sites then service providers would be hauled up by the police for acts they are not even faintly responsible for.

Why, then, is the committee proposing this insanity? The answer is simple — the committee has failed to understand the internet. In its report last month on the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill 2006, the committee headed by Congress MP Nikhil Kumar has called upon the government to abandon the proposal to reduce the liability of service providers or intermediaries in the wake of industry outrage over the 2004 arrest of Baazee.com’s CEO for the auction of a CD containing an infamous student porn MMS.

The bone of contention is Section 79 of the IT Act 2000 which says that no service provider shall be liable for any third party information if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such contravention.

Since the existing safeguard failed to save Baazee.com CEO Avnish Bajaj from being subjected to the ignominy of arrest and detention, the government sought to reduce the liability further in its 2006 Bill. The Bill raises the bar for taking action against ISPs by stipulating that they are not liable unless it is proved that they have conspired or abetted in the commission of the unlawful act.

To the industry here, the proposed amendment seemed a fair safeguard. But the standing committee, far from endorsing the change, has recommended that the existing Section 79 should be strengthened by casting “a definite obligation” on the service providers to ensure that the third party information was within the parameters of the law especially because it is very difficult to establish conspiracy or abetment on their part.

So, which way should Indian laws go? The way the advanced countries have gone, or in accordance with the wishes of some misinformed MPs that would spell the death of Internet in India?

It is clear by now that violence in video games is thought more pernicious than comparable violence in more traditional media. Just look at coverage of Halo, the top-selling science-fiction series that is akin to Star Wars in its level of made-up mayhem. In the mainstream media Halo is often described as a violent space epic or a violent shoot-’em-up game. But when was the last time Star Wars was described as George Lucas’s violent space movie? For that matter, when was the last time anyone referred to The Sopranos as a shoot-’em-up television show, which at some level it was?

The answer to both questions is basically never, and that is because American culture has become so inured to violence in linear media that even the most heinous depictions of brutality go almost without comment.

Video games don’t get that pass... [see the full article]

Nutters Urge Manhunt 2 Boycott

From Google News see full article

Nutters are urging parents not to buy Manhunt 2.

In my opinion, it's the most senselessly violent and offensive thing I've ever watched, said James Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit group that advises parents about television, movies, Internet sites and video games that may be inappropriate for children.

Steyer, who has not seen the version of the game being released this week, was talking about an unrated version that has been circulating free on the Internet since August.

It's disgusting, Steyer said. It's so violent, it struck me personally as pornographic violence.

Halloween Release

The US M Rated censored version is available at US Amazon [who won't deliver to Europe]

Manhunt goes on sale in the US over Halloween rated "mature," appropriate for people 17 and up, for about $28.

Made for the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 2. Producers at Rockstar Games submitted a cut version of Manhunt 2 that got the "mature" rating in August.

This is a very clear and firm warning to parents that the game is in no way intended for children, the ESRB said in a statement.

Other snippets about the release is that the unrated copy floating around the Internet is a European PAL version that does not run on unmodded US PlayStation 2 consoles.

Similarly the US M Rated version will only run on suitably modded European consoles.

There has been a lot of speculation that Manhunt 2 could be legally sold in the UK via internet download but there is little evidence of any plans to actually do this.

The Indian Information and Broadcasting ministry will soon issue a warning to television channels against airing programmes that promote superstition and occult practices.

Shows on occult and superstition on Hindi and vernacular language channels are said to garner high television ratings.

The viewership is believed to be high among people in the lower strata of society as also in rural India, though several social action groups are opposed to such programmes.

The government had planned to ban such programmes under a proposed content code, but the move failed to take off in the wake of resistance from the television industry.

As there are no specific guidelines for such programmes, the I&B ministry has asked an inter-ministerial committee to look into the whole matter. Last week, the committee met decided to issue the warning.

Officials in ministries from home affairs to women and child development, social justice and empowerment as well as health are unanimous that channels need to be warned as these programmes were having an adverse impact on society.

I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi had earlier hauled up news channels for showing special programmes allegedly propagating superstition and occult practices. However, news broadcasters said such programmes were being shown only to create awareness among viewers against such ills. So far, the ministry has showcaused only a couple of channels on specific programmes like Kal Kapal Mahakaal on Zee News.

Meanwhile the Indian government are discussing the new TV content code which will be a part of the new Broadcast Regulation Bill .This is likely to be introduced in Parliament during the monsoon session and aims to clear out the greys, and lay down a specific frame within which broadcasters should function.

The code puts programmes into nine categories, for children, women among others, and prescribes the dos and don’ts in each category.

The code specifies that adult content, programmes certified by the Censor Board as ‘A’, would be allowed on TV between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. Until now, only movies or music albums certified as universally adult (UA) were allowed.

Beyer Recommends: The Palace

John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk described the drama, The Palace, as a tawdry and offensive affair.

People are bound to draw parallels between the characters in this programme and existing members of the Royal Family and I think there is a real danger a programme like this can undermine support for the family. I don't think the public want a drama which casts aspersions on the Royal Family in this way. People have a great deal of affection for the Queen in particular, and any drama that intimates, rightly or wrongly, that it knows what is going on behind the scenes is going to cause offence".

The Palace is about two young princes knock back tequilas in a West End nightclub. The elder will one day be king while his brother revels in his image as a playboy. Both have had to endure the loss of a parent. It may sound familiar, but it is in fact the plot of a new "fictitious" television drama.

Tom Greaves, the creator and writer of the ITV show, last night denied that The Palace was based on actual events or people.

The series will be broadcast in January 2008.

The criminal libel convictions and one-month jail terms handed down Saturday against journalists for an Egyptian opposition daily are part of a government-organized campaign to silence the press and should be overturned, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

Al-Wafd Editor-in-Chief Anwar al-Hawari told CPJ that a criminal court in the southern city of Assiut convicted him—along with Mahmoud Abaza, the daily’s chairman of the board, and reporter Younes Darwish—in absentia on charges of libeling two lawyers in a March 21 news item. The brief covered a local council meeting that discussed the lawyers’ acquisition of a piece of land belonging to the Ministry of Religious Endowments in a private auction, he said. All three are free pending appeal.

Another harsh ruling against opposition voices has left Egypt’s press freedoms in tatters, CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said: We’re very disturbed by this sustained pattern of indirectly targeting the press though criminal lawsuits—a pattern that underscores the Egyptian government’s oppressive stance toward the press.

GameSpot interviewed Jim Cliff, a BBFC examiner dealing with video games. It is well worth reading the full interview but here are a couple of relevant questions

GameSpot: How do you defend the decision [to ban Manhunt 2] when faced with the fact that movies like Hostel have been released with 18 certificates?

BBFC: If the majority of Hostel was the same as some of the most violent scenes in it, it's entirely possible it could have been banned. But it's not. Most of the running time isn't violence, that's mainly crammed into a few short scenes. Also, in Hostel you are very much required to identify with the victims more than in most games.

GameSpot: This is only the second game to get banned in the UK and the other one was overturned on appeal. But is this likely? A lot of people are worried that this is kind of a sign of what's to come as games get more realistic, that more and more are going to get banned. Do you think that's going to happen?

BBFC: I think the fact that we've only banned two in 21 years of classifying games is a sign that it's not likely to be a problem. You know we very rarely cut games, we extraordinarily rarely ban them, whereas films and videos occasionally get cut--usually to get the specific age category that the company wants. We used to ban and cut a lot more films than we do now. So I don't think there's any worry that we're going to go the other way on games or back the other way on films.

Email to the British Muslim Forum

I wish to comment on your views on the Channel 4 programme Britz.

Despite the fact that this programme has not even been shown yet you condemn it and accuse of it of reinforcing negative stereotypes and showing hate and division in Muslim communities.

I wonder if you have been given access to a pre broadcast screening or whether you are passing judgement on the programme before you've even seen it.

In your eagerness to be offended and call for the programme not to be shown (thus calling for viewers to be denied the freedom to see the programme and judge it for themselves) you've clearly not bothered to find out what it's about and to find out the issues it tackles.

Therefore you've missed the fact that the programme takes on many of the issues which cause so many Muslims grievances and which sow the seeds for terrorism and extremism in the first place.

You have missed the fact the fact that the programme questions whether the unjust laws brought in by our government in the name of the "war on terror" are actually doing anything to fight extremism and terrorism or if they are fanning the flames of resentment and a sense of injustice which leads to young Muslims feeling alienated.

In your rush to condemn and be seen to be offended your views on Britz come across as ill-informed.

I doubt whether you have seen the programme at all otherwise you would not be attacking it. So when it's shown perhaps you should watch it and then maybe you will be in a far better position to pass judgement.

Geo News 27 July 2007, 12:00

GEO News broadcasts news from the Asian sub-continent which is of particular relevance to an Asian audience.

A viewer complained about some of the footage shown on this edition. The material included images of the aftermath of a bomb blast in Pakistan. This included the repeated use of footage of a crowd surrounding a vehicle in which a man had been killed. There were extreme close up shots of the dead man’s face revealing in detail the facial injuries sustained.

Ofcom queried the broadcast with regard to Rule 1.11 (violence before the watershed) and Rule 2.3 (offensive material to be justified by the context).

Decision

The footage complained of was particularly disturbing and graphic. It was so strong in nature that, even in the context of a news channel, with a largely adult audience with certain audience expectations, Ofcom concluded that its use could not be justified. The potential to cause offence was compounded by the fact that it was broadcast on a number of occasions. Further, the fact that the broadcaster repeated the image no fewer than sixteen times before the watershed within a short news report meant that the violent nature of the image was not appropriately limited as required by Rule 1.11.

Ofcom was particularly concerned at the broadcaster’s admission that the repeated use of this image was due to a lack of available footage. After the execution of Saddam Hussein, Ofcom highlighted that broadcasters need to consider very carefully the use of strong material as general ‘background’ imagery in news reports. Such consideration was not evident here.

Breach of Rules 1.11 and 2.3

A Channel 4 drama, which depicts a second-generation British Muslim woman as a suicide bomber, was condemned last night by the British Muslim Forum.

Khurshid Ahmed, the chairman of the forum, called on Channel 4 not to air the film, Britz, which is due to be shown in two parts on Wednesday and Thursday nights.

Britz tells the story of a brother and sister, Sohail and Nasima, as they are pulled in different directions by their conflicting personal experiences in post-9/11 Britain. Sohail, a law student, signs up with MI5. His sister, a medical student, becomes Britain's first female suicide bomber. The film's award-winning director is Peter Kosminsky.

Khurshid Ahmed said last night: Channel 4 should be working with us to defeat terrorism and extremism, not sowing hate and division in our communities, and reinforcing negative stereotypes.

The Home Office has viewed the film. A government spokesman said: Having seen extracts from the film and heard Mr Kosminsky's comments, we can understand the British Muslim Forum's concerns. Given Channel 4's remit as a public service broadcaster, they should listen to the views of moderate Muslims who reject violence and extremism, and they should air those views alongside this film.

[Actually the Home Office antipathy may be more to do with the director's criticism of Control Orders:

See Henry Porter in the Guardian see full article:

Pre-trial detention is the greatest possible offence to the rule of law, whatever the threat we face from terrorists, which I do not in anyway underestimate. Peter Kosminsky, the director of two interesting films called Britz, to be shown on Channel 4 next Wednesday and Thursday, explores the issues of control orders and pre-trial detention with the unwavering conviction that they act as stimulants to terrorist recruitment rather than making us more secure].

Wire in the Blood
ITV1, 18 July 2007, 21:00

This is the fifth series of the crime drama based on the books of Val McDermid. In this episode, the clinical psychologist Dr Tony Hall helps the police trace a serial killer who appears to subject the victims to witchcraft and pagan rituals. Three viewers complained about the violent and menacing scenes at the start of this episode before the title credits. They were concerned that these scenes were too close to the 21:00 watershed.

Ofcom asked ITV for comments in relation to Rules 1.3 (appropriate scheduling) and 1.6 (the transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed).

The broadcaster explained that the opening scenes had been carefully considered to avoid an “unduly abrupt” transition immediately after the watershed. The scene established the hate-filled and sadistic nature of the killer with short shots and the brief appearance of a machete. However, it was dark and menacing rather than a graphic portrayal of violence.

Decision

Ofcom acknowledges the steps taken to alert viewers to the content of this episode and that regular viewers would be aware that the series does dwell on the darker side of crime.

However, we were concerned that a threatening and violent scene was shown immediately after the watershed before the title credits. It opened with a brief witchcraft or voodoo ceremony and, then, almost immediately cut to a very distressed man tied to a chair in an abandoned warehouse. Another man entered, proceeded to dress in chain mail and, then, took a machete out of a case. The captive was in such fear for his life that he was shown to urinate in his trousers. After taunting him, the attacker wielded the machete, swinging it at the man’s head. However, the decapitation was not seen - only the man’s screams were heard as the machete swung towards him. The title credits immediately followed.

The Bill preceded this programme, which appeals to a wide-ranging audience including children. It is likely that some of these children were still watching at around 21:00. For this reason, Rule 1.6 requires that the transition at the watershed does not immediately contain strong, adult material. Although the information announcement would have given viewers some indication of the content, we felt that the length of the opening sequence and its undisputed menacing and violent tone went beyond what was acceptable at 21:00 on a channel that provides a general range of programming.

Given the preceding programme and the likelihood that children could still be watching, this episode was in breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.6.

Gordon Brown has set out to jettison Labour's reputation for authoritarianism with a pledge to "open a new chapter" on civil liberty in Britain.

He acknowledged that criticism of the rise of the ''Big Brother" society under Tony Blair had to be confronted.

He also wanted to close off a line of attack for political opponents, who have increasingly focused on the illiberal nature of government policy.

The Prime Minister reinforced his commitment with a series of announcements – ranging from greater access to Government information to a relaxation of restrictions on the freedom to protest – to reinforce his commitment.

Brown also promised a new Bill of Rights to entrench civil liberties and said Parliament would have a say over whether the country goes to war or signs international treaties.

He conceded that tackling terrorism had led the Government to stray deep into territory that its predecessors would never have contemplated.

The greater surveillance of citizens, identity cards, DNA testing and other intrusions on privacy had been made necessary by the need to keep the country secure, he said.

But care was needed to ensure that the liberties the terrorists despised were not set aside in trying to beat them.

Among the measures he announced were:

• New rights of protest. This will mean watering down laws – introduced just four years ago – that ban any unauthorised protest within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster.
• New rights of access to public information by extending the Freedom of Information Act to companies carrying out public functions, such as private prisons.
• Entrenched freedoms of the press to carry out investigative journalism.
• A review of the rule that allows Cabinet papers to be seen automatically only after 30 years.
• New rights against invasion of property after it emerged there are 250 laws allowing state agents to enter a home.
• A debate about a British Bill of Rights and Duties and the possibility of a written constitution.

Brown said he would not compromise the security of the nation and there would be tougher counter-terrorism laws before Christmas.

Comment: Free Speech organisations applaud ‘sea change’

From Index on Censorship see full article

Article 19, English PEN and Index on Censorship welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment, set out in yesterday’s speech on liberty, to implement many of the proposals in our joint ten-point plan for an open government, published in June

Gordon Brown’s promise to respect and extend freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the public right to know marks a sea change in government attitudes towards these fundamental rights. We applaud the decision to drop the deeply unpopular and retrograde fees regulation, which would have severely limited freedom of information requests, and the proposal to consider widening the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We also commend the decision to review the restriction to the right to protest outside the Houses of Parliament.

We note that Jack Straw has been commissioned to investigate the idea of a freedom of expression audit on future legislation, to ensure that the pursuit of new policy objectives such as combating terrorism and tackling hate crime does not ‘curb legitimate liberties to speak and be heard.’

However, it is not only new legislation which curbs these liberties. The presence of antiquated offences such as criminal defamation, sedition and blasphemy makes Britain a laughing stock in the international community, whilst the Official Secrets Act and Terrorism Acts continue to curb ‘legitimate liberties to speak and be heard’ on subjects of public interest.

We look forward to participating in the consultations now taking place, and welcome the chance to tackle these and the other restrictions on freedom of expression which we have already called on Gordon Brown to address.

A photograph belonging to Sir Elton John that was seized from a British gallery as part of a child pornography investigation is not indecent, the Crown Prosecution Service have said.

Northumbria Police removed Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing 1998 from the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, last month after a complaint by a gallery employee.

The image of two young girls, one skimpily dressed and the other naked, was part of the installation Thanksgiving by the American photographer, Nan Goldin. The collection of 149 photographs was purchased by Sir Elton in 1999 after it went on show at the White Cube gallery in London in 1999.

The CPS decided in 2001 that the image was not indecent. Kerrie Bell, head of the CPS Northumbria South Unit, said: To prove that the photograph is indecent we must be satisfied that contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001, that it is more likely than not that a court will conclude that the photograph is indecent. I am not satisfied that is the case.

When it was made in 1958, the censors considered the film Dracula so terrifying they refused to allow adults to watch the full, uncut version.

The Hammer film, starring Christopher Lee, was remarkable for its pioneering combination of fantasy, sexuality – and unprecedented gore.

But since then, a lot of blood has flowed under the cinematic bridge. So much so that the movie once deemed too scary for grown-ups has now been passed by Britain's film censors as suitable for children.

In 1958, after the more shocking scenes were cut, Dracula was approved with an X certificate, restricting it to over-16s. It went on to become a huge hit, revitalising the horror genre.

Almost 50 years after the initial controversy it is being re-released in British cinemas with a 12A certificate with an advisory note for parents that it includes "mild" horror.

Harry Potter is probably scarier than Dracula, said Sue Clark, BBFC's head of communications. She said times had changed since the original Hammer films came out: Without being disrespectful, because I thoroughly enjoy them, they are not that scary and they are not actually that gory – I suppose you might describe them as camp.

From the BBFC see full article

Dracula is a classic 1950s British adaptation of Bram Stoker's vampire novel Dracula. It was originally classified 'X' for cinema release in 1958 (meaning that persons under 16 should not be admitted) and was subsequently classified '15' for release on video. In terms of current classification standards it was felt that the film could now be classified at '12A' for cinema re-release for mild bloody horror.

BBFC Guidelines at '12A' state that 'Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sustained moderate threat and menace are permitted'. Although the film contains some sight of blood (most notably when a vampire is killed using a stake), there is no emphasis upon blood and injuries. Furthermore, although the film is atmospheric and generates some sense of threat, this is moderate in nature and distanced by the period setting and by the familiarity of the story, other versions of which have been classified at 'PG'.

Show Off UK
Turn On TV, 2 July 2007

Show Off UK is broadcast pre-watershed on Turn On TV. On-screen presenters invite viewers to chat to them via a premium rate telephone number, and to send in pictures and messages, some of which are then displayed on screen.

In addition, the programme has a website, www.showoffuk.com which is promoted during the programme. The website contains user-generated content, that is, videos posted by members of the public, which may be viewed by anyone visiting the website.

Ofcom was alerted to video content available on the website, which was entitled Anya Filthy Slut. This featured very explicit pornography. Whilst the video clip was not broadcast on air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared in a website that was promoted in pre-watershed programming. Ofcom therefore requested the broadcaster’s comments with reference to the following rules of the Code:

• Rule 1.2, which requires broadcasters to take all reasonable to protect people under eighteen
• Rule 1.3, which provides that children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them
• Rule 2.1, which requires that generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material
• Rule 2.3, which requires that in applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.

Decision

Whilst the content of PRM is not itself broadcast content and therefore not subject to the requirements of the Code, any on-air reference to PRM is clearly broadcast content. Such reference must therefore comply with the Code.

In this particular case, the video clip was extremely explicit (equivalent to BBFC R18- rated content) and could have been viewed by under eighteens who had visited the website after seeing it promoted during daytime television. This was of the utmost concern to Ofcom.

Ofcom considered that, before deciding to promote the website within the Show Off UK programme, the broadcaster should have ensured that it had rigorous compliance processes in place to avoid the posting of pornographic material. As this case clearly illustrated, reviewing website content once a day on weekdays was not adequate to protect under eighteens and indeed other viewers of the programme who might visit the website, having seen it promoted within the programme.

Ofcom therefore decided that, in including references within a programme to a website that featured pornographic material, the broadcaster was in breach of the Code.

In this case, Ofcom considers that until such time as the broadcaster can demonstrate to us that it has sufficiently rigorous compliance procedures in place, the programme and channel must not refer to the website.

Breach of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 2.1 and 2.3

A Kilmacolm woman’s campaign against lads’ mags is set to go to the Scottish Government.

Margaret Forbes has been urging supermarkets to stop stocking glossy mags such as Nuts, Zoo and Stuff on lower shelves where children can see them.

She believes the front covers are verging on soft porn as they display scantily clad women in supposedly provocative poses.

The 57-year-old nutter has collected nearly 200 signatures from Kilmacolm residents backing her campaign to stock the mags on the top shelf in a brown paper wrapper or with images hidden so only the title is visible.

And she’s determined to continue adding weight to her campaign and take it to the Scottish Government once she’s boosted the growing number of signatures.

Margaret cited Morrison’s in Greenock as an example of a supermarket which now has mags on higher shelves, but wants all other shops including garages and newsagents to follow suit: We still have this stuff in garages and newsagents and we will need people to say we don’t want this stuff displayed in front of our children.

The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed grave concern about the state of press freedom in China 10 months before the scheduled start of the Beijing Olympic Games.

In a resolution adopted Wednesday, the CPJ board said China had failed to live up to its commitment to allow journalists to work freely, a promise its leaders made in their bid to host the Games. In particular, the CPJ board called on Beijing to release the 29 journalists now in prison for their work.

The CPJ board also made the following recommendations:

• We call for an end to censorship and the dismantling of the elaborate system of media controls. We call for an end to the climate of impunity surrounding retribution meted out by local officials and others angered by critical media coverage.
• We call on the International Olympic Committee, having awarded the Games to China, to demand that the government fully meet its promises of press freedom for the 2008 Olympic Games.
• We call on sponsors of the Games to use their considerable influence to press the government to fully meet its promises of press freedom for the 2008 Olympic Games.
• Finally, we call on media organizations covering the Games to urge China to honor its media pledges to the IOC and ensure that their Chinese colleagues enjoy the same freedoms visiting journalists enjoy.

It is encouraging to hear that the Philippine Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has allowed Ang Lee’s controversial, award-winning film, Lust, Caution, to be shown without cuts.

The R-18 without cuts rating means the much-talked about sex scenes of Tony Leung and Tang Wei—graphic, yes, but integral to the film—will be seen intact by Philippine moviegoers.

Rather than cut the sexually explicit scenes, Ang and his producers accepted the film’s NC-17 rating in the US. Usually, filmmakers slapped with an NC-17 tag make cuts to get a less restrictive rating. They see NC-17 as a death knell for a movie at the box-office since this rating severely limits the size of the audience allowed to watch.

As we’ve written previously, these sex scenes are acrobatic and daring. In a film that wonderfully, deliberately takes its time to tell a story of emotional and political intrigue in World War II Shanghai, the scenes appear toward the end of the film. Tony and Tang, playing characters both wary and attracted to each other; circling, testing, baiting each other, finally let go and have unembarrassed sex.

The full nudity scenes seem so real that not a few viewers wondered if actual “pene” (borrowing a term, short for penetration, that was in vogue in Manila in the ‘80s) took place. Our colleague did ask Tony and Tang, who came with interpreters, about it in their joint press con with us in Toronto. The reporter asked, I apologize ahead of time. I hope no one will be offended. If you feel uncomfortable, you don’t have to answer. Did you have actual sex?

Tony answered, Of course not.

The BBC presenter Jo Whiley should have made an immediate apology to viewers after the singer Iggy Pop used the phrase “paki shop” in a live Glastonbury Festival interview, Ofcom has said.

The regulator criticised the BBC’s response to the lapse, which occurred in a late-night television interview with the controversial performer. Pop told Whiley that his transparent trousers solicited admiring glances when he walked down Camden High Street at a paki shop.

The BBC said that the veteran American punk star was probably unaware that a term commonly used 30 years ago has now passed out of ‘polite usage’.

Ofcom said that the term “paki” was racial abuse which is generally considered very offensive. Although the term was not intended to be pejorative, its use was offensive.

The BBC said that the programme’s producers discussed Pop’s appearance when the BBC Two show came off-air and concluded that the presenter should have been told to apologise at the time. An apology was issued later that day on the BBC News website in the light of complaints made directly to the BBC.

Hundreds of journalists marched through the streets of the Niger capital, Niamey to protest the arrests of two prominent journalists in connection with a government crackdown on media coverage of a rebellion of nomadic Tuaregs in northern Niger.

About 400 marchers carrying signs and chanting Free Moussa Kaka and Ibrahima Manzo! walked to the Place de la Concertation in front of Niger’s National Assembly. It was the most important march of journalists since 1990, when the country entered an era of political and media liberalization, according to Abdoulaye Massalatchi, president of one of a dozen local media groups participating in the march.

The government crackdown, including a ban on live debates discussing the conflict, a monthlong suspension of RFI and a three-month suspension of Aïr Info, has forced journalists to censor coverage, director Kader Idi of private Radio Anfani told CPJ.

The arrest of Moussa Kaka and Ibrahima Manzo Diallo are part of a disturbing pattern of censorship that threatens to undermine the democratic gains made by Niger, CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. Journalists not only have a right but also a duty to cover the Tuareg rebellion and keep the public informed. We urge the authorities to release our colleagues immediately and lift the restrictions imposed on national and international broadcasters.

MCV interviewed Gianni Zamo, a senior examiner at the BBFC

MCV: You are are preparing to review your guidelines for games to help differentiate them from how you rate films. Will this be noticeable when it comes to rating games?

BBFC: We have not reviewed our guidelines on games yet. This will form part of a review of all of the guidelines over the next year. In any event, we are not harsher on games than we are on films though problems generally arise where it can be difficult to make a contextual defence for a game as opposed to a film.

Many game narratives are often fractured and detached from the interactive element of the game, making it difficult to see them as a whole, coherent piece. Trying to understand the context of a 40 plus hour game (even with a storyline) is very different from understanding a 90 minute movie.

MCV: Does the interactivity of violent games mean that their influence differs to violent films?

BBFC: The Board is narrative/context sensitive in its deliberations. Interactivity may have an influence in certain contexts though our recent research seems to suggest that this is not a key issue for most users. Where ‘interactivity’ can be an issue is the question of who the player identifies with.

Nutters at Manchester Cathedral have "forgiven" Sony for not asking permission to use images of the building in a violent video game.

Sony's PlayStation game Resistance: Fall of Man, uses the historic church as a backdrop to a violent gunfight.

The game was nominated, but failed, to win an award at the British Academy Video Games Awards on Tuesday evening.

After it was announced that the game had not won an award, the Dean of Manchester Cathedral, the Very Reverend Rogers Govender said: I think some important lessons have been learnt. So we do forgive Sony for what they have done, even though they still believe they have done nothing wrong. In an industry that is breaking new frontiers, it is important that long held traditions of film and television are maintained. These traditions include having courtesy, respecting the dignity of your subject, and admitting when mistakes have been made. In so many ways Sony have failed to live up to these standards by disrespecting people of faith and the victims of gun crime here in Manchester.

He said however due to the row over the video game the cathedral had seen an increase in visits from young people and tourists.

The Thai Election Commission (EC) has introduced tough regulations to control the presence of politicians in all kinds of media from today until the election date on Dec 23.

EC chairman Apichart Sukhakkhanont said the commission prohibited radio stations, television channels, community radio operators and cable television operators from inviting candidates, or party executives and leaders to appear in their programmes.

The media are also banned from organising any discussion or debate in which one representative of parties are invited to speak.

The EC will limit the presence of these politicians in such media to a 30-second spot per day and three 10-minute speeches by a party leader in the run-up to the Dec 23 election. The commission wants all parties to get equal exposure in the media.

Although the EC's announcements do not impose restrictions on printed media, Apichart said the owners of printed media were also prohibited from organising forums or inviting politicians to speak or debate.

He said the EC would set up forums which all parties could share. Any forums apart from the EC-sponsored forums are forbidden and the press are welcome to cover the stances of politicians at these official forums.

Meanwhile, politicians have the freedom to campaign through electronic media such as SNS and the internet but such SMS must not appear on TV. The EC also prohibits candidates who are stars, singers and commentators from using their careers to advance their political campaigns.

Italian bloggers may be required to register with a national database, unless an ambiguously-worded new law is amended before it comes into force.

Widespread outrage among bloggers and IT-savvy journalists has reached the mainstream press, and the government now appears to be keen to revise a draft law which has led politician Francesco Caruso to remark: This is Italy, not Burma.

The law got its initial approval from Prodi's Cabinet of Ministers in mid-October, as part of a package attempting to tidy up Italy's publishing-related regulations, and requires further approvals before coming into force.

According to many legal experts, the murky text of the law can be construed to include non-professional, not-for-profit blogs and websites among "editorial products", giving them the same duties and liabilities as magazines and newspapers.

This would require even the lowliest Italian blogger or MySpace account holder to go through the hassle of filing personal details with the national registry of "communication operators" currently reserved for professionals of the publishing sector.

Besides its Big Brother-esque implications, this registration would also expose bloggers to penalties and jail terms if a blog post, or even a reader's comment, were considered libelous.

Ironically, the package was officially intended to simplify the paperwork and hassle currently required to run a magazine-style blog or site in Italy and to have access to state subsidies.

The chances of this law becoming effective in its current form are exceedingly slim, so there is no immediate cause for concern. The blog brouhaha may turn out to be another storm in a teacup, but it has certainly shown Italian netizens once again that their government is remarkably out of touch with the realities of the internet age.

The Majority on a partially divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel strikes down as facially unconstitutional, the 2257 recordkeeping requirements on producers of images of "actual sexually explicit conduct". The 2257 records verify the ages of those depicted in the images.

Describing the federal statute at issue, the majority opinion explains, The plain text, the purpose, and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered recordkeeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator's motivation. The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially overbroad and then strikes down the law as unconstitutional.

Even the dissenting judge agrees that the statute is overbroad, but he believes that judicial narrowing of the statute can save it from being unconstitutional.

This decision is a significant First Amendment ruling that directly implicates the controversial subjects of legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography. I expect that the ruling will receive plenty of attention.

From X Biz see full article

Attorney Lawrence Walters told XBIZ that the court’s opinion, while a very significant victory, is not the final word on the question of 2257’s constitutionality and cautioned that adult webmasters should not view it as the end of their 2257 concerns.

Generally, you have to be very careful with reacting too rashly to any opinion, Walters said. This is a panel ruling, and it is not final. The government could ask for an en banc rehearing by the full circuit, and they can appeal the decision.

Walters also noted that the decision only applies to the portion of the US that is covered by the 6th Circuit – namely, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The good news, Walters said, is that the government’s options in getting the opinion overturned are all “long shots,” and he said the court’s reasoning in the opinion was very sound.

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will today consider a bill that will introduce harsh punishments for various forms of offences against Buddhism, including sexual affairs with monks, novices and nuns.

The bill was proposed by a group of 179 NLA members, some of whom tried in vain to promote Buddhism as the national religion in the 2007 Constitution.

They reasoned that although Buddhism is the religion of most Thai people, there has been no law to protect and promote the religion seriously and cover Buddhist people in general.

The bill sets a jail term of 10-25 years and/or a fine of 500,000-1,000,000 baht for insulting, offending, imitating and distorting Buddhism and the Lord Buddha and a jail term of 5-10 years and/or a fine of 100,000-500,000 baht for damaging Buddhist objects, personnel and places. People who have any form of sexual affair with monks, novices and nuns are liable to five to 10 years in jail and/or a fine of 100,000-500,000 baht. However, the bill does not include any punishments for monks, novices and nuns who engage in sexual relations.

Congress has moved a step closer to enacting a new law regulating key aspects of how American tech companies operate in countries whose governments censor or otherwise manipulate the Internet.

As expected, the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs backed a slightly amended version of the Global Online Freedom Act.

Whether the bill will actually go anywhere from here is debatable. A Republican-controlled subcommittee passed a nearly identical proposal more than a year ago, but it never got any further attention.

Sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), it's a broad effort to hold American firms accountable for their practices in countries deemed by the U.S. government to be "Internet-restricting".

American firms would face a host of new restrictions and obligations under the bill. For instance, they wouldn't be allowed to store any e-mails or other electronic communications containing "personally identifiable information" about their users on servers in any of the designated countries. And they'd be obligated to give the State Department a detailed breakdown of how their products' search results have been filtered and all URLs that have been removed or blocked at the request of foreign governments known to be restrictive.

If approached by local authorities with requests for users' personal information, American companies wouldn't be allowed to turn it over except for legitimate law enforcement purposes, as determined by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Failure to comply with any of those rules could result in fines of up to $2 million.

The BBFC has gone on record to say that the Manhunt 2's use of the Wii motion-sensing controller had no impact on its decision to ban the game.

Speaking to MCV, the BBFC explained that the use of the Wii's motion-sensing controller - speculated by some to be a reason for encouraging the ban, given that it suggests more interactivity - did not impact the body's decision to stop the game going on sale.

Under certain circumstances and in certain contexts it is possible that motion-sensing devices might have an effect on category decisions, explained Gianni Zamo, senior examiner, but added: It is not a prime consideration for at the moment and has not affected any Wii games we have passed so far.

On the topic of Manhunt, he explained: We certainly didn't single out the Wii version of Manhunt 2 from the PS2 version on the basis that users could stimulate the delivery of a blow more realistically than the hand-controller of the PS2. Indeed, motion-sensing devices are nothing new. Prior to the release of the Wii nobody had ever expressed concern that one could buy peripherals such as pistols or flight/driving controls to add to the game experience.

Some good news on the Criminal Justice Bill.

Harry Cohen has suggested some good amendments such that all references to `appears to be` be dropped, meaning that the DPA now only applies to images of actual violence, and the following exemption from prosecution clauses have been added:

• (a) an image of an act to which all participants in the production have consented
• (b) an image the production of which involves fictional or staged acts performed by consenting actors
• (c) an image produced for the purpose of responsible education

This would remove most, if not all, of the worries about this law being used against BDSM, horror movies, etc.

Notice to Broadcasters re Babe Channels

In 2006, Ofcom wrote to broadcasters operating channels in the adult section of Sky’s Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) that transmit programmes based on viewer interaction with on-screen presenters (known as babes). These channels, which are broadcast free-to-air without encryption, invite viewers to contact the presenters via premium rate telephony services (PRS). The letters were written because Ofcom had a number of concerns about the material shown on the channels, including:

• the appropriateness of sexual content broadcast before the 21:00 watershed, including the promotion of premium rate services offering adult chat
• the explicitness of sexual content broadcast after the watershed
• the promotion of premium rate services within programmes.

As a result of these letters and Ofcom investigations in 2006, significant improvements were made to the daytime content on the channels. However, concerns have remained about the degree of sexual content broadcast after the 21:00 watershed as well as continued problems relating to the promotion, within programmes, of PRS that appear to contribute neither to the editorial of the programme nor meet the definition of programme-related material.

The following Findings result from recent investigations in this area. In addition to the cases detailed below, Ofcom has a number of other on-going investigations, some of which may result in consideration of further regulatory action. Due to Ofcom’s serious concerns about levels of compliance in the ‘adult’ sector, by both ‘babe-style’ channels and free-to-air content on encrypted channels, Ofcom is considering amendments to the Code so as to require that all material transmitted in the adult section of the EPG is protected by a mandatory PIN. Any such proposals would be subject to a full public consultation.

Due to the serious nature of the Code and Licence breaches recorded in this Bulletin concerning babe channels, Ofcom considered whether some of these matters should be referred to the Content Sanctions Committee for consideration of a statutory sanction. However, Ofcom has monitored the output of babe channels in recent months and noted some significant improvements in compliance after the watershed (e.g. there was less or no very crude or explicit language or visual content). In view of the remedial action taken by relevant broadcasters to improve compliance, we decided against referring these matters to the Committee. Nevertheless, any breach of a similar nature by a broadcaster of a babe channel in future is likely to result in further regulatory action.

All providers of  babe style channels should therefore study carefully the findings
below

Get Lucky TV

Grandiose Limited, 6-7 March 2007, 23:00-01:00

Ofcom found that the broadcaster failed to adequately demonstrate that the following services contributed to the editorial of the programme or met the definition of Programme Related Material:

• the off-screen chat service
• the private text service
• the service that allowed viewers to submit photos to the channel.

Additionally, the promotion of the services that provided viewers with photos of presenters was unduly prominent.

Breach of Rules 10.4 and 10.9

Lucky Star

Escape Channel Limited, 17 March 2007, 23:37 & 7 May 2007, 00:20

The recordings provided by Lucky Star, through their provider EBS, were not adequate for Ofcom’s investigation. The condition in licences obliging broadcasters to provide material as broadcast is a crucial one, since Ofcom relies on it for evidence when investigating potential breaches of the Code. The broadcaster’s failure to supply a recording of adequate quality was a breach of its licence conditions. Breaches of Rules 10.2, 10.3 and 10.9 Breach of Licence Condition 11

Star Bazaar

7/8 May 2007, 00:00-01:00

Ofcom judged that the promotion of the PRS within the programme was in breach of the Code.

When judging what constitutes ‘adult-sex’ material, Ofcom guidance for broadcasters takes account of definitions used by the BBFC for ‘sex works at 18’. These are defined as: works… whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation.

We consider that the actions of the presenters (e.g. masturbation) and the explicit sexual language used demonstrated quite clearly that one of the main aims of the programme was to arouse viewers sexually: there was no other significant editorial context for the explicit images and language. Such explicit material is suitable for broadcast only on subscription/pay per view channels that have appropriate protection mechanisms in place. The broadcast of the programme was contrary to viewer expectations for a free-to-air unencrypted channel (albeit one situated in the adult section of the EPG and broadcasting after the 21:00 watershed). The broadcast was inconsistent with the application of generally accepted standards to ensure protection for viewers from harmful and/or offence material.

Breach of Rules 1.24, 2.1, 2.3 and 10.9 Breach of Licence Condition 11

LivexxxBabes

17 April 2007, 21:00-01:00 & 18 April 2007, 21:00–01:00

Ofcom was particularly concerned by the sexual language and behaviour used shortly after the 21:00 watershed. In view of the above matters, the programme was in breach of Rule 1.3.
The content on 17 and 18 April exceeded generally accepted standards and there was insufficient context to justify the potential offence. It was therefore in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3.

Moreover, Ofcom considered that one of the primary purposes of the sexual content broadcast on 18 April 2007 after 22:00, which included highly explicit sexual language and prolonged scenes of vigorous masturbation with a dildo, was sexual arousal or stimulation. This content therefore in Ofcom’s opinion comprised ‘adult sex’ material and its broadcast on an unencrypted channel was in breach of Rule 1.24.

For clarity, Ofcom considers that depictions of masturbation, simulated or otherwise, are not appropriate for unencrypted broadcast unless there is strong editorial justification. In this case, there was not sufficient justification.

Breach of Rules 1.3, 1.24, 2.1 and 2.3