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

What’s good for the cinematic goose is not, apparently, okay for the video game gander.

As reported by the Daily Mail, the BBFC, which assigns both film & game ratings in the UK, has adopted a hands-off approach to movie violence.

That’s of interest to GamePolitics readers because it was the same BBFC which banned Manhunt 2 in June.

The BBFC on violent games & Manhunt 2:

Against this background, the Board’s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2 would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.

The BBFC on violent movies & Eastern Promises:

The 18-certificate movie, which is released this week, includes graphic scenes of throatslitting, child prostitution and a man having an eye gouged out.

A spokesman for the board said it was up to adults to decide what they wanted to watch and that movie-goers were free to look away from the screen.

The BBFC stood by its decision. Scenes that make people turn away are part of the fun of going to movies, a spokesman said. The board added: These days we are not here to cut; we are here to provide information and let people then make up their minds . . . People also have expectations of what a Cronenberg film is.

The BBFC provides clear consumer advice. If the board went about cutting out every scene liable to offend then we would be leaving adults without any choice. Who’s to decide what adults can or can’t watch?

However, the BBFC can apparently decide what adults can or cannot play…

An Islamic court in Nigeria Monday lifted a ban it placed on a play written by a civil rights activist which satirizes the implementation of Sharia law in 12 mainly muslim states, lawyers said.

Mustapha Umar, a judge of the upper Sharia court in the northern city of Kaduna, ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Concerned Sharia Forum, a pro-Sharia group.

Umar had on October 3 issued a motion restraining playwright and activist Shehu Sani from selling or circulating his play, Phantom Crescent and banning performances of the play.

The court has thrown out the case on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction and with this ruling the earlier orders given by the court have no legality henceforth, defence lawyer Muhammad Sanusi told AFP.

The play is a satire depicting how politicians, especially governors of the states implementing the islamic Sharia legal system, use it as a tool for looting the public treasury and for stifling opposition, Sani said

We have started preparations to appeal the upper Sharia court ruling before the Kaduna state high court because we believe circulating the book and staging its performances has the potential of causing a sectarian rift, not only in Kaduna but in many parts of the north, counsel to the plaintiff, Aliyu Ahmad Sharif, said.

youPorn is the highest trafficked adult website in the world. But YouPorn and other blue Web 2.0 startups could be out of business in the near future if proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. 2257 are accepted into law.

Known in the industry as "2257," this law defines requirements porn producers must follow to verify the age of every performer, keep records about the performers' identities and make those records available to the government. The proposed changes would extend the statute's reach beyond adult-content producers to include social networking websites.

That could mean every adult who wants to upload a naughty picture to a social network would have to submit a photo ID and state their full name, date of birth and other personal information. The network would have to maintain that record for as long as the picture exists and ensure the record is available without question to The Authorities between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Porn studios already have a hard time complying with all the ins and outs of recordkeeping laws. And while adult social networking sites do seem to try to keep illegal material off their servers, I think it would be impossible for a social networking site to comply with the proposed changes.

What if users submit false information, who gets punished? Who verifies IDs? A studio production assistant can check performer IDs in person; would social networks have to open offices all over the country to verify prospective members in person? Good luck with that one.

The ostensible purpose of the law is to curtail child pornography, and no legitimate porn producer argues with that. In fact, many have become rather paranoid about not letting underage individuals slip through the screening process.

You can put pressure on a business to comply with ridiculous legal requirements, but try leaning on millions of individuals engaging in private, personal behavior in their own bedrooms. Even Alabama focused its sex-toy ban on the stores, not on the use or possession by individuals.

We have become complacent in recent years about the government's ability to control the form and art of things. But the substance, the life, the sex? Not when the venue is this private (your own home). And when the regulations apply to  regular people doing something perfectly innocent, like posting a fully nude self-portrait on an adults-only network.

John Beyer, of Mediawatch-UK, said the board should be sacked for failing to show leadership at a time when street violence is spiralling.

The BBFC has become increasingly lax and ineffective and is completely out of touch with public opinion, he told the Mail.

It needs to be replaced with another body which will show more responsibility on the issue of violence.

Despite the latest statistics in gun and knife crime showing that the problems of violence are at an all-time high, the BBFC refuses to take action.

This culture of violence that the BBFC has engendered has got to come to an end.

There is no question that the BBFC has set about changing and lowering standards over time with more violence and sexual content being put out for an ever younger audience.

He claimed that in the past three years board members had become a law unto themselves.

Transcripts of the 4 sessions so far.

Relevant points:

• First sitting (Oct 16)
  Q50 Harry Cohen and MoJ minister Maria Eagle
• Second Sitting (Oct 16)
  Q138 Jan Berry Chairman of the Police Federation gives evidence, questioned by Charles Walker & Vernon Coaker.
• Third Sitting (Oct 18)
  nothing on extreme porn
• Fourth Sitting (Oct 18)
  Q19 Gareth Crossman of Liberty questioned by Harry Cohen

Britain's film censors are facing controversy over their decision to allow one of the most violent movies of recent years to be screened without any cuts.

Eastern Promises, directed by David Cronenberg, includes scenes said to be so gruesome that, at its British premiere last week, members of the audience gasped and turned away from the screen. But it was awarded an 18 certificate without any cuts because BBFC has introduced a policy of not removing violence from films, except in a few cases, such as explicit scenes of rape.

The board has become so liberal towards violence that some of its former leaders are said to be concerned. It is now out of step with public opinion, said Mike Bor, the BBFC’s chief examiner from 1983 to 2000.

The sequences in Eastern Promises, which centres on the Russian mafia in London, include one in which a knife is twisted repeatedly and gleefully into a man’s eye and two showing victims having their throats cut in graphic detail.

Andreas Whittam Smith, a former president of the BBFC, said he had not seen Eastern Promises but that when he ran the board, from 1998 to 2002, he had used an “unofficial test” to decide on cuts: If I thought this was the type of film that was likely to make people leave the cinema, or even make them have to look away for quite a while, then I would question why the scene should be left in.

This weekend, the BBFC stood by its decision. Scenes that make people turn away are part of the fun of going to movies, a spokesman said. The board added: These days we are not here to cut; we are here to provide information and let people then make up their minds . . . People also have expectations of what a Cronenberg film is.

Eastern Promises, starring Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts goes on general release next weekend, after its premiere at the London Film Festival.

From the BBFC see full decision:

EASTER PROMISES is a mystery thriller set against a backdrop of London’s organised crime fraternity. It was passed ‘18’ for strong bloody violence.

The BBFC’s Guidelines at ‘15’ state that ‘violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury’. In EASTERN PROMISES there are three key scenes of extremely visceral violence, two images of throats being slit and one of a man's eye being viciously and repeatedly stabbed. These images focus on the actual process of violence in bloody detail and with a clear element of sadism which goes beyond what is suitable at ‘15’ but is suitable for adults at ‘18’.

EASTERN PROMISES also contains frequent use of strong language, a single sex scene which lacks strong detail and references to the rape of an underage girl. Finally the film makes reference to the forced use of heroin on an underage teenage girl brought into England with others to work as prostitutes for criminal gangs.

Review from Amazon US

I found A History of Violence to be a good movie, but Eastern Promises is crafted into something even better. The acting by Viggo Mortensen is outstanding, even Oscar worthy, while Naomi Watts and Armin Mueller-Stahl lend good work as well.

The movie is just the right length at about 1 hour and 45 minutes. It doesn't feel rushed or too long.

The movie is gory and brutal, but not nearly as violent as I expected going in. If you liked A History of Violence or mob films in general, this film should land on your best of 2007 list.

European Union Justice, Freedom & Security Commissioner Franco Frattini yesterday turned up the volume on terror threats, ahead of the EU's adoption of "an ambitious counter terrorism package" next month.

Frattini produced a litany of likely components to the forthcoming preventative package, which will include an EU Action Plan on Enhancing the Security of Explosives, around 50 measures designed to improve the security of explosives, alongside other measures [which] take into account the reality of today's technological world - making it criminal to spread information about bomb-making, including through websites.

Criminalisation is here a slight escalation on Frattini's earlier plans to block online bomb-making guides, but is unlikely to make any significant difference to the UK's anti-terror operations.

Recent UK terrorism trials have included a high proportion based on charges of sharing or possessing information likely to be of use to terrorists, based on documents (many of doubtful effectiveness and provenance) freely available on the Internet, or in some cases even on Amazon. Frattini's new measures are likely to spread the British approach, where increasingly guilt is dependent on who you are and why you might be in possession of a particular document, rather than merely on possession of the document, further into EU judicial systems.

Frattini's speech also covered wider access to EU Member States' fingerprint, DNA and vehicle registration databases, more co-ordination to tackle Internet-enabled identity fraud, child abuse and terrorist propaganda.

Ed Richards, Chief Executive, Ofcom delivered the Annual Ofcom Lecture which included the following paragraphs on internet censorship:

"Finally, the issue of harmful content online.

This is an issue which has recently come to the forefront of public debate, but one that we at Ofcom have been quietly thinking about for some time.

Clearly some of the examples of harmful content on the internet we are seeing have no place in our society.

By way of illustration, let me highlight a report shown on BBC London a month or two ago, which examined some of the appalling content freely available today.

In this case it included the torching of an Asian figurine in what was a shocking and disturbing display of racism.

One of these clips, one of the worst, remained on a major video sharing website for some six months, despite its deeply offensive content.

Even worse, despite the producers reporting the piece as offensive every day for a week, pretending to be normal users, the piece was not taken down until they identified themselves as BBC journalists.

This case, at the very least, demonstrates that a voluntary take down policy was ineffective in this one instance.

Let me say that while I do not yet claim to know precisely what the right answer is in this area, I do not regard this kind of situation as one that can be in any way acceptable to any of us as citizens.

What we need is a policy response that is based on the data and evidence of the prevalence of this kind of content and of the potential harm it causes.

This will require a combined solution involving Government, industry, consumers and, where necessary, the regulator.

We need to understand the risk of harm and then what we can practically and proportionately do about it - balanced of course with the widely shared desire to protect the wonderful freedoms and openness that lie at the heart of the internet.

These freedoms and openness are well worth protecting and nurturing...BUT... we cannot do so in a way which ignores the wider issues that are raised by the rapid march of the internet and broadband networks into our living rooms and into the lives of our children.

So we welcome the Byron Review and look forward to making our contribution to that work. It is in an important area and one which is rightly receiving attention from across the political spectrum".

Access to the popular social networking website Facebook has been blocked in the United Arab Emirates. Some UAE internet users are confirming that the ban was ordered by the government-owned Etisalat. The Administrator of itihad.net (UAE) called up his ISP’s call center and they stated that they are blocking Facebook.

Other Internet users, however, are reporting they can access the website and that there is no blocking at their end.

The UAE Facebook community has setup a petition to keep facebook from being permanently blocked. The petition has already more than 690 signatures. According to Time Out Dubai: Facebook has over 55,000 users in the UAE with numbers rising daily.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Facebook have unveiled censorship procedures said to protect against sexual predators and obscene content from getting on the social-networking Web site.

Under the settlement, Facebook says it will enforce the new standards within 24 hours after a complaint about pornography or harassment is lodged.

Cuomo, whose office was investigating Facebook, said an independent examiner will report on Facebook's compliance for two years. The company must also post safety procedures on its Web site.

Cuomo said that Facebook can serve as a model for other sites, saying his office may take on similar efforts with other Internet networking companies.

Last month, Cuomo announced an investigation into Facebook after undercover investigators posing as children were allegedly solicited by sexual predators and the company was lax in responding to complaints. Other attorneys general were conducting similar inquiries.

Under the agreement, Facebook will disclose the new safety procedures on its Web site, including adding hyperlinks for users or parents to give feedback about the company's response to complaints.

Folsom Street Events (FSE) Board of Directors has issued a statement addressing protests by various religious groups of the organization's flagship event, the Folsom Street Fair, which was held on Sept. 30 in San Francisco.

The FSE also has asked its supporters to contact Miller Brewing Company, a vendor and fair sponsor, and encourage the beer company not to “cave in” to pressure from right-wing groups to stop its participation in the fair.

FSE said: We have worked successfully with this company for many years, and they have been very supportive. This is no longer an issue of our poster image, but it is an issue of free speech and freedom of expression. We think it's important for Miller to hear from you — the people who enjoy the Fair. Please contact Miller spokesman Julian Green at green.julian@mbco.com to let them know how much you appreciate their support.

FSE named the Catholic League as chief among the groups that are protesting the street fair, which is one of the largest outdoor events held annually in California. The event is the culmination of Gay Leather Pride week in San Francisco.

We can no longer stand by while Folsom Street Fair remains under attack. The Catholic League insists upon provoking its followers, resulting in emails and phone calls threatening us with everything from ill-will to bodily harm, FSE Board of Directors' President Andy Copper said.

We understand that The Catholic League believes it is doing ‘the right thing’ but they are attacking our San Francisco values of community, diversity, education and freedom of self expression. If they do not share in our values or do not understand them, that’s fine; but they have never opened up a dialogue with us. They have only stood in judgment, making threats. We can no longer remain silent on the issue, Copper said.

Today, the Catholic League posted another statement, declaring that it will petition rabbis and Muslim imams in the Milwaukee area, to support the boycott of Miller Brewing Company.

Last week we sent some photos of the Miller-sponsored Folsom Street Fair to all the pastors of the 166 Protestant churches in Milwaukee. Today we are blanketing all the synagogues and mosques in Milwaukee; we are asking rabbis and imams for their assistance in protesting Miller’s anti-religion agenda. Next week we will target another segment of the Milwaukee community, the League said.

Our anti-Miller PR campaign and boycott of Miller beer will continue on a weekly basis until such time that the Miller Brewing Company issues a statement reassuring Americans that it will never again promote an anti-religious event.

The BBC veteran, Terry Wogan, presented Sunday's Points of View in a pair of moleskin trousers which clung relentlessly to a certain area and left little to the imagination.

The corporation has received a flurry of complaints about Terry's 'wardrobe enhancement'.

Even Sir Terry's most ardent female fans appear to have found the experience a little unsettling, if the BBC's on-line message boards are to be believed.

One said: I have just watched Points of View with my daughter and my husband. When the camera panned out on Terry Wogan, I didn't know where to look. Both my daughter and I were totally embarrassed to see Terry with very revealing trousers on. I'm sure we can't have been the only ones to notice.

The Malaysian government has warned it could use tough anti-terrorism laws against bloggers who insult Islam or the country's king.

The move comes as one of Malaysia's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party.

The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial.

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak told The Straits Times that the move was aimed at getting some moderation in postings on the internet, especially on sensitive issues: Some people feel that they have crossed the line, in making racist remarks.

But the BBC's Jonathan Kent in Kuala Lumpur says the government also appears increasingly concerned about the growing online criticism of its record.

Raja Petra Kamarudin, the editor of one of Malaysia's most popular political websites, Malaysia Today, turned himself in to police to answer allegations that he had mocked Islam and threatened racial harmony.

Raja Petra is known for his frequent criticism of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and other government figures: I was alleged to have insulted the king, and also Islam and incite racial hatred, so I am going in there to reply to all these charges. I promise I'm going to give them a hell of a tough time.

He defended his website, saying: Many people, especially the non-Malays in this country, do not have a forum to air their views.We should not deny these people a chance to vent their feelings.

Malaysia Today is believed to attract around a quarter of a million visitors a day, giving it more readers than most Malaysian newspapers.

Police yesterday arrested two men at the 12th Book Expo Thailand 2007 who were selling erotic novels and seized hundreds of the titillating tomes.

Special Branch Police commander Maj-General Sombat Supacheeva spouted that although these works contained no photos, they used sexually explicit language and could incite lust.

The victims of the police nonsense could each face a maximum three years in jail and/or a fine of Bt6,000.

Ladda Tangsupachai, prudish director of the Culture Watch Centre, praised the police for cracking down on salacious material. The Culture Ministry will convene a meeting of agencies next week to tackle the spread of adult material, she said.

The book expo runs until October 28 at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Centre.

Manhunt 2 is a video game so violent it was the first in a decade to be banned in Britain. But a Sky News investigation has discovered that anyone, including young children, can still get hold of the game.

Thousands of gamers are using the internet to get their hands on a video game banned because of its graphic scenes of torture and murder.

Manhunt 2, which features a character who goes on a gruesome killing spree in a mental institution, is the only game to have been banned by British censors in the past 10 years.

The BBFC refused to allow it to go on sale because of its "relentless violence" and "casual sadism".

But the game was leaked onto the web - and anyone with a little technical knowledge [of Google and the word 'BitTorrent'] can download it and play it on a modified games console.

No-one of any age is allowed to play the game, and yet our investigation found thousands of people downloading it.

Gaming expert and journalist Rob Fahey told Sky News: What's disturbing about the game is you play a killer. There's no victim to sympathise with, there's no particularly complex storyline; you simply go around killing people in extraordinarily violent ways... there's no moral framework around it.

Australia's restrictive ratings classification system for games has struck again. This time, Activision's upcoming first-person shooter Soldier of Fortune: Payback has been hit by a censor ban.

A Classification Board spokeswoman said the board ruled that Soldier of Fortune: Payback's playing impact... was a high impact which exceeded the MA15+ classification. Some specific examples included close range shooting with substantial blood spray, blood splatters onto the ground and walls, [the ability to] target various limbs of the opponent which can result in dismemberment, and large amounts of blood sprayed which comes from the stump but victims sometime stay alive.

The game has a Mature M rating for a US release on 13th November 2007

A Rory Bremner sketch on Channel 4 in which Gordon Brown pledges to find missing child, Madeleine McCann, has attracted 32 complaints from viewers.

Viewers of last Sunday's episode of Bremner, Bird and Fortune said the sketch was in poor taste and particularly insensitive because the McCann case is ongoing.

C4 said Bremner's intention was to lampoon the lengths that politicians will go to for public support. We can assure you the sketch was not aimed at the McCann family, but was clearly directed at politicians and their opportunistic publicity stunts, a spokesman said. It was certainly never Channel 4's intention to offend or cause distress to the family or to our viewers.

The 32 complaints were made to media regulator, Ofcom.

Eritrea has replaced North Korea in last place in an index measuring the level of press freedom in 169 countries throughout the world that is published today by Reporters Without Borders for the sixth year running.

Reporters Without Borders said. Eritrea deserves to be at the bottom. The privately-owned press has been banished by the authoritarian President Issaias Afeworki and the few journalists who dare to criticise the regime are thrown in prison. We know that four of them have died in detention and we have every reason to fear that others will suffer the same fate.

China (163rd) still the world’s biggest prison for bloggers and online journalists. With its position in the ranking unchanged since last year, China continues to pursue very repressive policies towards the Internet. Five major censorship bodies, including those operated directly by the government and the Communist Party’s publicity department (the former propaganda department), control the flow of news and information online. Fifty cyber-dissidents are currently detained in China because of their online activities. Reporters Without Borders said: With less than a year to go to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the reforms and the releases of imprisoned journalists so often promised by the authorities seem to be a vain hope.

Vietnam (162nd) continues to be one of the world’s must authoritarian and repressive countries as regards online freedom of expression and information. Six online activists were arrested in the space of a week in May. This is one if the reasons why Vietnam fell eight places in the ranking. The hopes raised by the release of most of the detained cyber-dissidents in November 2006 was just a smokescreen to ease Vietnam’s admission into the World Trade Organisation a month later. Eight cyber-dissidents are currently in Vietnamese prisons, serving sentences ranging three to 12 years for “hostile propaganda.”

Bloggers have to live with the same fears as traditional media journalists. Governments adopt measures to control the flow of news and information online and some asks bloggers to register with the information ministry. This is the case in Bahrain (118th), where 18 websites that defend human rights have been blocked for the past year. Malaysia (124th) often harasses bloggers and their families while Thailand (135th) adopted a computer crime law in July that requires ISPs to keep each person’s online usage records for 90 days and allows the authorities to examine them without any control by the courts.

A total of 26 bloggers and online journalists have been convicted and jailed since September 2006 for using their right to online free expression. Cases of Internet censorship are on the increase and more and more repressive governments are realising the threat that the Internet poses in the hands of pro-democracy activists. Bloggers are now being harassed as much as journalists working for the traditional media. Worldwide, 64 cyber-dissidents are currently in prison.

1 Iceland - Norway 3 Estonia - Slovakia 5 Belgium - Finland - Sweden 8 Denmark - Ireland - Portugal 11 Switzerland 12 Latvia - Netherlands 14 Czech Republic 15 New Zealand 16 Austria 17 Hungary 18 Canada 19 Trinidad and Tobago 20 Germany 21 Costa Rica - Slovenia 23 Lithuania 24 United Kingdom 25 Mauritius - Namibia 27 Jamaica 28 Australia 29 Ghana 30 Greece 31 France 32 Taiwan 33 Spain 34 Bosnia and Herzegovina 35 Italy 36 Macedonia 37 Japan - Uruguay 39 Chile - South Korea 41 Croatia 42 Romania

43 South Africa 44 Israel (Israeli territory) 45 Cape Verde - Cyprus 47 Nicaragua 48 United States of America 49 Togo 50 Mauritania 51 Bulgaria 52 Mali 53 Benin 54 Panama 55 Tanzania 56 Ecuador - Poland 58 Cyprus (North) - Montenegro 60 Kosovo 61 Hong-Kong - Madagascar 63 Kuwait 64 El Salvador 65 United Arab Emirates 66 Georgia 67 Serbia 68 Bolivia - Burkina Faso - Zambia 71 Central African Republic 72 Dominican Republic 73 Mozambique 74 Mongolia 75 Botswana - Haiti 77 Armenia 78 Kenya 79 Qatar 80 Congo 81 Moldova 82 Argentina 83 Senegal 84 Brazil

85 Cambodia - Liberia 87 Albania - Honduras - Niger 90 Paraguay 91 Angola 92 Malawi - Ukraine 94 Côte d’Ivoire - Timor-Leste 96 Comoros - Uganda 98 Lebanon 99 Lesotho 100 Indonesia 101 Turkey 102 Gabon 103 Israel (extra-territorial) 104 Guatemala - Seychelles 106 Morocco 107 Fiji - Guinea - Guinea-Bissau 110 Kyrgyzstan 111 Cameroon - USA (extra-territorial) 113 Chad 114 Venezuela 115 Tajikistan 116 Bhutan 117 Peru 118 Bahrein 119 Tonga 120 India 121 Sierra Leone 122 Jordan 123 Algeria 124 Malaysia 125 Kazakhstan 126 Colombia

127 Burundi 128 Philippines 129 Maldives 130 Gambia 131 Nigeria 132 Djibouti 133 Congo 134 Bangladesh 135 Thailand 136 Mexico 137 Nepal 138 Swaziland 139 Azerbaijan 140 Sudan 141 Singapore 142 Afghanistan 143 Yemen 144 Russia 145 Tunisia 146 Egypt 147 Rwanda 148 Saudi Arabia 149 Zimbabwe 150 Ethiopia 151 Belarus 152 Pakistan 153 Equatorial Guinea 154 Syria 155 Libya 156 Sri Lanka 157 Iraq 158 Palestinian Territories 159 Somalia 160 Uzbekistan 161 Laos 162 Vietnam 163 China 164 Burma 165 Cuba 166 Iran 167 Turkmenistan 168 North Korea 169 Eritrea

Be Unlimited (owned by O2) has caused a stir with some users who have reported the inability to access some websites hosted by Lycos. It appears that the cause has been Be's implementation of blocking access to child abuse images based on a list published by the Internet Watch Foundation.

The problems experienced by Be users trying to access legitimate content originate from the way in which the company implemented the blocking of sites on the IWF list.

The IWF claim the list contains specific URLs which point to web pages containing live images of child abuse, but blocking these often requires specialist technology which examine the web address in detail.

Be's implementation appears to be rather more crude by converting these into IP addresses and blocking all access to those on their network. This has the side effect of blocking access to potentially thousands of other legitimate websites which are not connected in any way with the illegal images, except by the fact they share the same physical server (a normal practice in website hosting environments).

BBC2 have just broadcast Bloody Cartoons, a Danish documentary about the Mohammed cartoons crisis.

The documentary showed all 12 of the cartoons on screen.

No reports of complaints about the TV showing of the cartoons...so far

The satirical show, Californication, featuring  David Duchovny made an impat in Australia with four sex scenes when it first went to air in August.

Its opening sequence depicted Duchovny's character Hank Moody praying to Jesus in front of a giant crucifix while a nun performed oral sex on him.

Parent and Christian groups say the US show is inappropriate for Australian screens, even in its late-night broadcast slot of 9.30pm.

The heated response to the show included complaints from more than 40 companies, including Holden, Arnotts, Nestle and Woolworths who pulled their advertisements.

The media authority, ACMA, has now confirmed an investigation would be launched.

The letter, signed by Andrew Power, the authority's assistant manager of assessment content, said the inquiry could take several months.

Festival of Light nutter spokeswoman Roslyn Phillips said: There is still a long way to go. We made our complaint in writing, and Channel Ten responded to the complaint, but ACMA will launch an investigation. We are happy with this move but not happy with the show. We don't like the way the Catholic Church is treated, it's beyond the pale. The show can't be shown late, it has to be pulled. The way it's treating religion and sex is just harmful.

Network Ten said the show was a ratings winner, consistently attracting close to one million viewers. A network spokeswoman said the show abided by all codes and practices.

A tiny political party that promotes sexual freedom in Canada complained in Federal Court it was discriminated against by the country's postal service.

The Sex Party is upset that Canada Post refused to distribute a flyer during the 2006 federal election that outlined the group's philosophy, after deeming some its contents to be pornographic.

We are advocating for rights established for any citizen, said Sex Party leader John Ince, who told a judge in Vancouver that the pamphlet was intended to help recruit new party members and raise donations.

The Vancouver-based party, which advocates liberalization of Canada's prostitution laws among other issues, says its political mailing ran afoul of rules aimed at prohibiting use of the postal system to distribute mass-mailing flyers for hard-core pornography or other illegal material.

That is not what our material is, Ince told the court. Ince, a former lawyer who owns an erotica shop, said the Sex Party does not oppose restrictions on mailing hard-core porn, but said postal officials have been inconsistent in applying their own rules.

Canada Post said it has an obligation to refuse material that could be seen by children or others who might find it offensive.

Canada Post has denied its motives were political.

Alt TV has blamed a drunken employee for breaches of broadcasting standards that have seen the channel taken off air.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority banned Alt TV from broadcasting for five hours next Monday after it ruled that Groove in the Park, the channel's broadcast of a music event, breached standards of good taste and decency and children's interests, and encouraged denigration and discrimination on the basis of race.

In its response to the Authority, Alt TV explained that it had employed the services of a moderator/censor to look at the text messages before they were broadcast. Unfortunately, it said, the person who had been employed had become intoxicated on the day and had failed to perform this role.

As punishment, Alt TV has been ordered off-air between 12 noon and 5pm on Labour Day and been told to instead display a statement which summarises the authority's decision and apologises to viewers. The channel has also been ordered to pay costs of $5000.

The authority said it considered the breaches to be "extremely serious". A viewer complained that during the broadcast text messages of a racist and sexual nature, including explicit language, were run across the screen. The statements supporting death of and violence towards people of particular races could, the authority said, aptly be described as hate speech.

The Citizen Lab has released Everyone’s Guide to Bypassing Internet Censorship [pdf]. It was a team effort to produce the guide and I’m very pleased to have contributed to it. I’ve long argued that users can benefit from circumvention technology the most when the carefully select the technology that meets their specific needs.

The guide walks users through the process of assessing their needs and and capabilities and lists clusters of circumvention technology options for users to choose from.

New Zealand's chief censor Bill Hastings is again under fire from nutters who say his decisions are seriously clouded by a 'gay agenda' and years of watching porn.

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards' executive director David Lane believes all hard-core pornography should be banned under New Zealand's censorship laws which guard against 'degrading, dehumanising or demeaning' content.

[Hastings] makes it very clear that being gay is a very significant part of his being, of how he addresses and perceives the world, Lane told this weekend's NZ Herald Canvass magazine.

Clearly, this does influence the way he assesses what's in the public good… When it comes to watching videos with scene of gay sex, he would have to be looking at that in perhaps a different way to a person who holds to a heterosexual understanding of marriage or fidelity to their spouse, concluded Lane.

In response, Hastings points out that banning everything with explicit content is against the principle of freedom of expression, which is a foundation of democracy: I'm not a moral guardian. I just apply the law… I couldn't do my job if I was on some pro-gay crusade. Those claims are always based on really hurtful stereotypes, which are totally ridiculous and false.

The son of murdered Turkish-Armenian writer Hrant Dink has been found guilty of insulting "Turkishness", along with another newspaper editor.

Arat Dink and Serkis Seropyan were convicted after printing Dink's claims that the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks from 1915 was genocide.

The verdict came a day after a US congressional committee backed a bill labelling the killings as genocide. Turkish leaders reacted angrily, but the decision was welcomed by Armenians. The non-binding US vote, passed by 27 to 21 votes by members of the congressional House Foreign Affairs Committee, is the first step towards holding a vote in the House of Representatives.

Arat Dink and Mr Seropyan, who both work as editors at Agos, a leading bilingual Turkish and Armenian weekly newspaper, were given one-year suspended sentences for printing comments made by Hrant Dink during an interview.

Dink, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, was one of Turkey's most prominent Armenian voices. He was shot dead outside his Istanbul office in January 2007. At the time he was appealing against a prior conviction for the same offence - insulting the Turkish identity under Article 301 of the country's penal code.

Turkey faces ongoing international pressure to scrap the offence, under which dozens of writers who have been charged, often for articles dealing with killings of Kurds or Ottoman Armenians.

The court of appeal yesterday delivered a landmark judgment for investigative reporting when it ruled that the publishers of a book about police corruption could rely on a defence of "responsible journalism".

The unanimous ruling by three appeal court judges will make it easier for newspapers and publishers to defend themselves from libel actions by arguing that, even if not every allegation can be proved, their writing amounted to "responsible journalism" on a matter of public interest.

Lords Justices Ward, Sedley and Hooper overturned a preliminary ruling that Graeme McLagan, author of Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's Battle Against Police Corruption, could not rely on the so-called Reynolds defence because his writing did not meet the standards of responsible journalism.

The libel action was brought against the book's publishers, Orion Books, by Michael Charman, a former Metropolitan police detective who was asked to leave the force for discreditable conduct. He claimed the book suggested there were "cogent grounds" for suspecting him of being involved in police corruption.

The Reynolds defence originates in a 1999 House of Lords judgment in a case brought by the former Irish taoiseach Albert Reynolds, which was intended to create a protective shield for responsible investigative reporting.

The appeal court judges said yesterday that the allegations about Charman could not be proved, but they ruled that McLagan, a former BBC home affairs correspondent, had taken steps to verify the story and that as a result of his honesty, his expertise, his research and his thorough evaluation of a mass of material, the book qualified as responsible journalism.

The Russian government has banned a photograph showing two policemen kissing each other passionately in a Siberian forest from going on display in Paris.

The image shot among the snow-covered forest of birch trees shows the two men, in full uniform, kissing on the lips and holding each other by the buttocks.

Its creators claim it is a homage to the British graffit artist Banksy but the work proved too controversial for culture minister Alexander Sokolov.

Russia's culture minister claimed Kissing Policeman (An Epoch of Clemency) was politically provocative and banned it and 16 other works from going on display in Paris

This is despite the fact they have all already been on display in Moscow's state-owned Tretyakov gallery. Sokolov said: It this exhibition appears, it will bring shame on Russia. In this case, all of us will bear full responsibility. It is inadmissible... to take all this pornography, kissing policeman and erotic pictures to Paris.

Another work by the same artists, the Blue Noses collective, which showed Vladimir Putin, George Bush and Osama bin Laden cavorting on a doube bed in their underpants, was also banned.

His actions prompted one of two artists in the Blue Noses, Alexander Shaburov, to say: The state is beginning to administer culture in the same way it did under Khrushchev.

The revised, cut-down version of Manhunt 2 that the BBFC banned is now confirmed as the same cut that the ESRB approved for sale in the US.

So while US gamers get to finally play Manhunt 2 this Halloween, gamers in the UK and across Europe have to wait until Rockstar goes through the lengthy, tedious process of having to go to the Video Appeals Committee.

And while Rockstar in the UK is currently stuck in some kind of Kafka-esque nightmare of appealing to nonsensical committees about a horror game which every right-thinking person assumes should never have been banned in the first place, the BBFC has responded to recent criticism from the publisher that it favours movies over games.

A BBFC spokesperson told MCV: We don’t differentiate how harsh we are on DVD or video games – we have a duty to both under the Video Recordings Act.

If we were more tough on games than any other medium, don’t you think we’d be banning far more titles? Manhunt 2 is the second game we have rejected in 23 years. I’d hardly call that draconian. [Oooh...it's so unfair]

DVD companies don’t complain when we reject their products. The creator of Struggle In Bondage didn’t get up in arms. [Yes but Struggle in Bondage was only missed by a few, Manhunt is anticipated by thousands, it is more akin to banning a Hollywood blockbuster]

Manhunt 2 went beyond our guidelines when it came to gross violence and we had a public duty to reject it. [Bollox!]

Ahmad Oweidi al-Abbadi, the 62-year-old former parliamentarian and leader of the Jordanian National Movement, was sentenced to two years in prison for “undermining state dignity”, “sending false news through emails” and “illegally distributing leaflets.”

He was arrested on May 3, 2007, for accusing the government of corruption in an open letter emailed to US senator Harry Reid.

The jailing of Ahmad Oweidi shows that Jordan’s government hasn’t shaken off its old habits of going after critics by putting them in prison, said Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch.

Another Jordanian has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for writing and publishing poems on Jihadi websites praising Al Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden. Mohammed Al-Zohairi, who is being depicted as “Al Qaeda Poet” was arrested in August 9, 2007 and charged with offense against the royal dignity.

The Egyptian Press Syndicate Thursday criticised a fatwa by Mohamed Sayed Tantawi of Grand Azhar Imam - the highest authority in Egypt - stipulating that journalists convicted of publishing crimes should receive 80 lashes.

It was as if Sheikh Tantawi is part of a campaign against the press, journalists and people who have an opinion, the syndicate statement said.

Tantawi gave other opinions including the revocation of any convicted journalist's testimony in court, which alienates them from the society and sentences them to a civil execution.

Tantawi had earlier given his fatwa following a series of cases against journalists. His fatwa stirred outrage among many journalists and independent and opposition newspapers.

Senior writer Fahmy Howaidi criticised Tantawi in statements published in independent al-Masry al-Youm newspaper, saying he wore many hats and at the time he gave this fatwa, he put on that of the authorities.

Eleven journalists and editors-in-chief of opposition and independent newspapers have been sentenced to prison or fines over the last month on charges of publishing "fake news," "insulting icons of the ruling party" and "spreading rumours." Their appeals are under way.

Twenty-three Egyptian independent and opposition newspapers did not publish last Sunday, in protest at verdicts passed against journalists.

Tantawi argued for the lashings by quoting a verse from the Quran saying that those who accused women of adultery without necessary proof were to receive "80 floggings."

He said his example involved women but added that libel is also applicable to men ... this punishment is set by God to protect the honor of men and women from bad talk that hurts dignity and honor.

Thankfully however, lashings are not punishments used in Egypt.

Singapore's government says it will continue to maintain "ceremonial censorship" and "a light touch" on any censoring of the internet.

Singapore's Second Minister, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, Vivian Balakrishnan said: It is not possible to censor the Net in its entirety or insist on a single perspective being dominant. But, we do draw some lines in cyberspace and we block a total of 100 basically pornographic sites. We call this ceremonial censorship. We block 100 to indicate to the public that as a society, we don't stand for this. We are not going to waste our time hunting down every site.

The only time we prosecuted anyone on the internet was two years ago when a few bloggers made disparaging racial and religious remarks.

The minister says the Internet provides huge opportunities to tap into creativity, innovation and the generation of new enterprises: That opportunity is too good to be missed simply because one is paranoid, thus we will not be paranoid about the Internet. But we will be sensible and pragmatic in understanding where the dangers and the threats are, and we will seek to make our own stand on issues of sensitivity and concern.

The government's proposed law against homophobic hate speech is unworkable and disingenuous.

Unless the government has it in mind to ban the Bible, the new law announced by the government this week proposing to outlaw homophobic hate speech will be ineffective.

The major source of homophobic hatred in our society is from religious groups. Almost every single anti-gay group in Britain is religious. These groups hide behind their 'holy' texts, and unless the law has the backbone and resolve to ban these texts and to prosecute the priests, imams and rabbis who quote them, it is wasting its time trying to clamp down on anti-gay hate-speech.

The proposed law will bring itself into disrepute and serve only to trivialise homophobic violence if it were only ever used against dim-witted Big Brother contestants and drunk Oxford students, while ignoring religious leaders - the most guilty.

Hit movies in Pakistan follow the tried and tested Bollywood recipe of glittering saris, extravagant song-and-dance routines and exotic locations, but a new film has broken the mould. Director Shoaib Mansoor has replaced the typical love stories with warring families, in a harrowing tale of terrorism, racism and the battle for Islam that has proved so controversial there were fears suicide bombers would attack the premiere.

In the Name of God has sparked fury among hardline clerics with its moderate interpretation of Islam and its spirited criticism of the atrocities committed under the guise of religion.

Abdul Rashid Ghazi, cleric of the Red Mosque, the site of a recent bloody siege, slammed the movie as blasphemous. Meanwhile a lawyer demanded the high court ban the film, branding it a conspiracy to disturb law and order in Pakistan.

Yet despite their objections, the film has electrified audiences in Pakistan and has been called the most important cinematic event in memory. Theatres in many of the country's cities have been sold out for four weeks and debates about the film's subject matter have been raging across websites and blogs for months.

Filmgoers in the UK will be able to see what the fuss is about when it is released in early November.

Ek Ajnabee
Zee TV Cinema, 27 May 2007, 12:00

Zee Cinema is a subscription movie (not pay per view) channel aimed at a predominantly Hindi audience. Ek Ajnabee is a thriller/crime film rated ‘18’ by the BBFC. The plot centres on a bodyguard who goes on a quest to find his employer’s daughter, who has been kidnapped by gangsters. In doing so he systematically searches for, tortures and kills those he believes to be responsible for the kidnapping.

One viewer complained. She was shocked that both she and her nephews were able to watch such a violent film during the afternoon at the weekend. Ofcom asked Zee TV to respond with regard to Rule 1.3 of the Code (children must be protected from unsuitable material by appropriate scheduling).

Zee TV said that programme was broadcast in edited form to ensure the content was editorially justified and suitable for broadcast pre-watershed. As a consequence, the channel argued that the film would not have disturbed a child viewer.

Decision

This 18-rated film as broadcast contained material of a highly adult, and often violent nature – kidnapping, torture, shoot outs, suicide and drugs use. Ofcom notes Zee TV’s attempts to minimise harm to children and offence through editing.

Upon viewing the material, however, Ofcom found that in its opinion many of the edited scenes were still too harmful to be shown before the watershed at the time of broadcast. For example, although torture scenes may have been edited so that violent detail of the protagonist inflicting pain on his victims was minimised, these scenes were still nevertheless too extreme by their very nature, including body parts such as fingers and ears being severed, and the chief protagonist toying with the idea of suicide, by placing a gun in his mouth.

In addition, certain sequences containing unsuitable content still remained in the film as broadcast – for example, a brief scene of a criminal snorting cocaine. Ofcom considers that this film was clearly unsuitable for children and it was not appropriate to broadcast it before the watershed.

It was therefore in breach of Rule 1.3.

The nutters of Morality in Media (MIM) are sponsoring their annual White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week from 28th October to 4th November.

They are calling on nutters to support yearlong efforts to “fight back” against the supposed threat of pornography. My challenge is this: Please participate in some way in this year’s WRAP Week and consider what you and your organization can do to oppose pornography between now and Nov. 2008, Morality in Media President Robert Peters said: Frankly, I don’t know if our worthy cause can survive another eight-10 years with no enforcement of federal obscenity laws. I say this because a disturbingly larger number of our nation’s youth and young adults are viewing pornography, and they don’t even see this as a moral problem.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of WRAP. Participants are encouraged to wear white ribbons as a symbol of being holier than thou and advocacy of the enforcement of federal obscenity laws, which the organization believes need to be more strictly enforced.

Numerous other nutter groups join forces with MIM to campaign against the “devastating effects” of pornography on the moral fiber of the society. Advocates are prompted to organize rallies and petition drives. Spreading the word through churches and clergy, as well as contacting local, state and federal politicians is encouraged, according to the organization. The groups endorse also sending letters of complaint to business and media companies that promote or distribute pornography and adult-oriented products.

In recent weeks, Chinese authorities have intensified efforts to control the media, particularly online news and discussion forums.

In an unprecedented move, public security officers in various regions have ordered entire Internet Data Centers (IDCs) to close. IDCs physically house servers, often several at a time, which in turn host hundreds and sometimes thousands of Web sites each. According to widespread reports from the media and industry insiders, entire IDCs have been shut down if they host a single Web site that posts information that the government deems offensive.

Waigaoqiao, one of China’s largest IDCs based in Shanghai, was ordered to close on September 3, effectively shutting 30 servers at once, according to numerous reports from bloggers and industry insiders. Police turned off 1,000 computers housing servers run by Lanmang Internet Co, after they discovered blogs on the network that contained “illegal information.”

Authorities have carried out inspections and issued warnings to other IDCs throughout the country.

Nutters could face up to seven years in jail for simply preaching from the Bible under Government plans to criminalise incitement of homosexual hatred.

Jack Straw announced proposals similar to the controversial incitement of religious hatred laws to target those who stir up hostility based on sexual orientation.

Religious groups warned it could lead to preachers being prosecuted for emotionally expressing their firmly-held beliefs and will restrict freedom of speech.

They said gay rights were being given priority over Christian values and that believers felt under threat.

Ministers insisted any new law is aimed at extremists, and that people would not be prosecuted merely for expressing an opinion.

But sources admitted it would be up to police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether charges should be brought in any individual case.

Colin Hart, director of The Christian Institute, said: In a democratic society people must be free to express their beliefs without fear of censure from the state. A homophobic hatred law would be used by those with an axe to grind against Christians to silence them. People shouldn’t face prison for expressing their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

An Institute spokesman added: The criminal law will extend to the pulpit and we could have vicars standing before a court trying to defend themselves.

Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said: If someone is reading the Bible and calls homosexuality an abomination, is that going to be incitement? There are similar passages in the Koran and the Talmud.

I was against the incitement to religious hatred legislation. Either you water it down until it becomes pointless or you have a situation where you deprive people the right to have access to freedom of speech.

The Foreign Office has been accused of trying to gag diplomats for life after regulations were issued stopping them from commenting on international issues even after retirement.

Serving officials have always been required to seek permission before giving media interviews, writing public letters, publishing books or taking part in conferences. This restriction applies if any of these activities would draw upon experience gained during the course of official duties.

But a letter from the Foreign Office director of human resources, circulated to ambassadors and senior staff, effectively makes this a lifetime obligation. In a passage underlined for emphasis, the letter states that your obligations of confidentiality continue after you have left the service.

All serving diplomats are asked to show they agree to the requirement. They are asked to note that their "particular attention" has been drawn to the regulations covering the use of official information or experience in publications, contacts with the media, lectures, speeches and conferences.

A former ambassador said this amounted to a lifetime gag. The Government attempt to gag diplomats is regrettable not only because it makes their assertions that they want more freedom of speech appear hypocritical, but also because it is ineffective, he said.

Experience shows that the courts will not support arbitrary action by government, and that juries will not convict on laws they believe to be unjust.

Many retired diplomats have become keen bloggers on international affairs. Without Foreign Office clearance, their successors would be unable to do the same.

Call Me a Cabbie
Sky Three, 16 August 2007, 07:30

Call Me a Cabbie is a factual entertainment reality series which was repeated in morning timeslots on Sky Three. Ofcom received two complaints that the episode broadcast on 16 August 2007 contained several swear words including the words ‘fuck’ and ‘fucking’ at a time when this channel, available on the Freeview platform, was accessible for children to view.

Sky responded that the series as originally broadcast contained language that was inappropriate for broadcast at times when children were likely to be watching. A version with offensive language edited out was therefore created for the repeats of this series on Sky Three in the morning. However, as a result of human error the wrong version of the programme was broadcast on this occasion. Sky has confirmed to us that this was the only occasion in the series where the incorrect version was played.

Decision

Although this series did not attract a significant child audience, it was broadcast at 07:30 and on a service readily available to a large majority of households and therefore available for children to view. Our research indicates that ‘fuck’ (or ‘fucking’) is one of the most offensive swear words1. This programme contained four instances of these words as well as ‘bollocks’, ‘shit’ and ‘tosser’. Furthermore, all of this language was included in the subtitling provided for this programme.

We welcome Sky’s assurances that it has reminded staff of the importance of due diligence in assigning the correct versions of programmes to respective timeslots in their schedules. However, this programme contained several instances of bad language, including the most offensive type, and was broadcast before the watershed.

This programme was therefore in breach of Rule 1.14 of the Code.

The 10 most whinged about library books of 2006, according to the American Library Association are:

• And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family and unsuited to age group.
• Gossip Girls series, by Cecily Von Ziegesar, for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group and offensive language.
• Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, for sexual content and offensive language.
• The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler, for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
• The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group.
• Scary Stories series, by Alvin Schwartz, for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence and insensitivity.
• Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher, for homosexuality and offensive language.
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky, for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
• Beloved, by Toni Morrison, for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group.
• The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier, for sexual content, offensive language and violence.

A British teenager who is accused of possessing material for terrorist purposes has appeared in court.

The 17-year-old was given bail after a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

It is alleged he had a copy of the Anarchists' Cookbook, containing instructions on how to make home-made explosives. This book is a well known cult book that has been around for ages and is currently available on both UK and US versions of Amazon

His next court hearing has been set for 25 October.

The teenager faces two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000. The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year. The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

The Government is to make it a crime to incite hatred because of a person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, Jack Straw announced last night. The offence will carry a maximum sentence of seven years.

Straw, the Justice Secretary, outlined the plans to MPs but the details of the measure are yet to be finalised. He will insert a clause to create the offence when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which had its second reading last night, reaches committee stage.

Under the proposal it would be considered a crime to incite hatred against homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual people.

Prosecutions will be brought only with the agreement of the Attorney-General. The new crime will cover people using threatening words or written material, or recording visual images or sounds that incite hatred because of sexual orientation.

Evangelical Christian groups was concerned that people who said gay sex was wrong could end up in jail. Colin Hart, director of the conservative evangelical Christian Institute, said: In a democratic society people must be free to express their beliefs without fear of censure. A homophobic hatred law would be used by those with an axe to grind against Christians to silence them. There have already been high-profile cases of the police interfering with free speech and religious liberty regarding sexual ethics. People shouldn’t face prison for expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, said: If such an amendment is put forward, it is likely to be in the form of the existing incitement against racial hatred law. The type of actions targeted would not only be violently homophobic words, but would no doubt cover any criticism of practising homosexuality, homosexual acts and lifestyles.

Leading gay rights campaigners insisted that the proposed offence would not lead to the prosecution of people expressing religious views. It will not apply to those who temperately express religious views, a leading campaigner said.

Thailand, which strictly enforces laws protecting the monarchy, plans to extend protection to royal advisers and other members of the royal family and restrict media coverage of cases, lawmakers have said.

Under the proposed amendments, to be debated by the army-appointed parliament on Wednesday, journalists could be jailed for three years and fined 60,000 baht ($1,750) for ignoring a court-ordered publication ban.

We don't want any offence to the monarch to be repeated in the news or become an issue of any criticism inside or outside Thailand, Supreme Court chief judge Pornpetch Wichitcholchai told Reuters.

Those protected by the expanded law would include sons and daughters of the monarch and royal advisers known as privy councillors, Pornpetch said.

Thailand's lese majeste law is already among the toughest in the world, with jail terms of three to 15 years for anyone who "defames, insults or threatens" the king, queen, heir apparent or regent.

Under the proposed amendments, those found guilty of lese majeste against royal children face up to seven years in jail, and up to five years if it is against royal advisors, Pornpetch said.

The most recent conviction was of a Swiss man jailed for 10 years in March for defacing pictures of the king. At the request of police, few Thai newspapers reported the case of Oliver Rudolf Jufer, who received a royal pardon and was deported.

The police were doing the right thing and the media made the right decision not to report the story, but we are going to put those judgment calls into law, Pornpetch said.

But a media rights advocacy group said the amendments would gravely violate people's freedom of expression, which should be debated widely in the public, not by army-appointed legislators.

The existing law is already very powerful to gag the people. There is no need to make it tougher, said Supinya Klangnarong of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform: They should let the democratically elected lawmakers decide what to do with the current law.