If you thought that Australia rules when it comes to over-zealous censorship, you may need to think again, as the UK’s very own Ofcom looks set to challenge the nanny-crats down under for first prize. Australian censorship, as exemplified by ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, came to our attention last year …
So when the Sky News presenter the other morning mentioned 'Google.com' he was also breaking the same regulations?
Although why anyone would look for pornography on a UK website, with our somewhat restrictive laws on this sort of thing (Visiting the BBFC website to view the R18 censoring seems to indicate that tinkling on each other is a no-no, nor are some of the more interesting insertions, for example) instead of hardcore donkey-corpse-with-midgets porn or whatever? I find it interesting that we as a nation pretend we're not into pooing in each other's mouths when history clearly indicates that we are.
"I find it interesting that we as a nation pretend we're not into pooing in each other's mouths when history clearly indicates that we are."
You, sir, made me choke on my gourmet lunchtime poo.
I hope your therapist is on danger money.
"Any references to websites or URLs made on air, which can be through an interactive element of a service (ie the yellow button), are broadcast content. Ofcom therefore has the duty and the power to regulate such references under the Communications Act 2003."
So those "bing.com" adverts will now be banned?
If you go to that site, typing one word and clicking three buttons will show you thousands of pictures of ladies inserting the very same items into the very same placed that caused OFCOM such shock at televisionx.com. No sign-up was required, just "a button on a warning page to confirm that the user was over 18"
I'm sure you could probably get from google's page to some smut more quickly than this sounds so do you think ofcom should ban all broadcasters from mentioning their name?
Actually I wonder whether you can get from Ofcom's site to smut more easily?
"Actually I wonder whether you can get from Ofcom's site to smut more easily?"
Six degrees of lickin' bacon?
Why is the chancellor struggling to find places to cut expenditure when idiots like Ofcom waste our time and money on this crap? It's laughable, or perhaps ofcome is Off Comody?
It's clearly less Comedy than it is Tragedy.
This included explicit images of a woman inserting a dildo.
What a lot of bother... I guess the *two* people who complained (probably morally righteous prudes) never thought to pick a search engine, turn off the sanity filter, and then look for suggestive terms...
...now, as for Webber on a fake throne, there's an image that needs to be regulated.
... for the Coalition to include in the Freedom Bill methinks...
get a life.
For the most part the age limit is pointless. http://xkcd.com/751/ illustrates this quite well.
Although it's quite probably that today's children are likely to get their first porn experience from the net rather than a slightly grubby magazine sniggered over by a group of boys behind the bike shed.
I've seen several adverts directing viewers to "search the internet for ..." now I don't recall what these products were or even if they could possibly have been considered "adult" but this seems like the ideal solution to their problem.
Stop telling people to visit their website and tell them to search the internet for televisionx to get more information.
Now if ofcom want to regulate that I guess it'd be censoring links to links to links (using link trackers as a link)
When is Cameron going to do what he promised and abolish them?
Never paid for porn before, not about to start now.
Past their introduction, you get nowhere farther than some low resolution images obscured with "play" symbols, unless you're paid up.
So, for anyone to see any "dildo" action, they had to be valid subscribers.
Or are they whining about the little blurry pictures?
Double Epic Fail
Double epic fail for Ofcom. First of all why are they wasting their time and our money on this?
Why do they make totally arbitrary judgements on supposedly hardcore content when we have the BBFC R18 guidelines? Why do they pick on the "adult" channels but allow films like 9Songs to be shown uncut on the movie channels?
It's totally inconsistent.
The second reason why they fail is that most of the "complaints" are made by rival broadcasters.
Ofcom must go. It's a bloated bureaucracy that serves no useful purpose.
The 900 channels are all grouped together. Any person can change the settings on their skybox to block access to them. Surely if you don't want to watch this stuff then don't go there.
This whole saga reminds me of the spinster who called the police to report that she could see a naked man from her bedroon window. The plod arrived and looked out. "I can't see any naked man madam" he said. "Ah but you can if you stand on that chair" she replied.
Ofcom should be disbanded asap
confused article over confused issue
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16