|
BBFC decides that a strident men's rights website should be 18 rated
|
|
|
| 16th October 2017
|
|
| See website classification report
[pdf] from bbfc.co.uk See returnofkings.com |
The BBFC arbitrates on website blocking algorithms used by mobile phone companies. If there is a dispute over the censorship decisions made by the mobile companies, then the BBFC decides whether websites should be 18 rated or not.
returnofkings.com is a rather strident supporter of the men's rights movement. It is outspoken and totally politically incorrect, but in a quick survey I didn't spot anything that
described or promoted sexual violence. There's probably something somewhere, but the initial impression is dominated by the unPC language and ideas. The BBFC wrote: Issue A mobile network
operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the suitability of the website for people under 18, following a complaint from a member of the public that the site had been placed behind adult filters despite containing no material that in the complainant’s
opinion would cause access to be restricted to adults only. Adjudication We noted that it was a news/blog site with sections containing various strong sexual descriptions, including descriptions and
promotion of violent sex. We also found the website contained very strong language at a number of points. On that basis we were satisfied that the website contained material we would classify 18. |
|
BBFC asked to decide if websites offering VPNs should be 18 rated so as to blocked to under 18's
|
|
|
| 15th October
2017
|
|
| See website classification report
[pdf] from bbfc.co.uk |
The BBFC arbitrates on website blocking algorithms used by mobile phone companies. If there is a dispute over the censorship decisions made by the mobile companies, then the BBFC decides whether websites should be 18 rated or not. In August 2017,
the BBFC were asked to consider a request to unblock the website privateinternetaccess.com which sells VPN services used to work around internet website blocking. The BBFC explained: Issue mobile
network operator contacted the BBFC for advice about the suitability of the website for people under 18, following a complaint from the site owner that it had been placed behind adult filters despite containing no material that in the complainant's
opinion would cause access to be restricted to adults only. Adjudication The BBFC viewed the site on 31st August 2017.We noted that it was a website offering a paid-for VPN service. The site offered
information on how to subscribe to the service, a description of the features offered by the service, client support services and a contacts page. While the BBFC is aware that VPNs can be used to enable illegal activity and to avoid detection when a
criminal offence is being committed, they are not themselves illegal under UK law. In addition, the website contained no overt references to illegal activity - for example, it does not include instructions on how to use a VPN to commit an offence or
promote the use of the service in order to avoid detection when committing an offence. As such, we found no content which we would classify 18. |
|
BBFC decides that the Urban Dictionary website should be adults only
|
|
|
| 9th January 2017
|
|
| See bbfc appeals report [pdf] from
bbfc.co.uk See also Quarterly reports page from bbfc.co.uk See also
urbandictionary.com |
The mobile phone companies use an algorithmic approach to the blocking of websites for mobile device users who are under 18 or else adults who have not got themselves verified as adults. The BBFC acts to decide appeals against the phone company
decisions. Note that the only options available to the BBFC are for websites to made available to all or else restricted to verified adults. The BBFC commendably publish these appeal decisions. From the latest batch of two appeals in the
preceding 3 months, the BBFC have considered Urban Dictionary The Urban Dictionary provides factual definitions of slang terms which often involves string language and sex references. For Example:
Censorshit the idea that censorship is bullshit....nothing needs to be censored.....if you don't want to watch swearing, violence, or sexual content, DON'T WATCH IT! simple as that.....nobody is making
you watch it.....they have disclaimers for a reason....and if you don't want your kids watching that shit, tell your kids what they can and cannot watch.....and if they don't listen to you then you are a bad parent for not teaching your kids to do what
you say. every time i watch tv there's nothing but censorshit everywhere. that movie sucked because of the censorshit.
The BBFC advised that the website should
be blocked to under 18s, explaining: We noted that it was an online dictionary of slang words and phrases. While a broad range of terms were explained (with definitions from a broad range of contributors), we found
that very strong language and sex references were present in a significant minority of these explanations. Sex references included crude descriptions of activities including masturbation, oral sex, and urination and defecation during sex. In addition,
there were references to rape and paedophilia, and definitions of discriminatory terms, which were delivered in an irreverent tone intended to shock or amuse. Given the crude and potentially offensive nature of this content, and the lackof context that
accompanied it, we did not consider the website suitable for people under the age of 18.
It seems bizarre that teenagers should be blocked from a dictionary explaining their own terms, but there you go, that's censorshit for you.
|
|
BBFC finds that the alt-right Daniel Pipes website does not contain 18 rated content
|
|
|
| 9th January 2017
|
|
| See bbfc appeals report [pdf] from
bbfc.co.uk See also Quarterly reports page from bbfc.co.uk See
danielpipes.org |
danielpipes.org The website owner contacted the BBFC to complain that the site was blocked by adult filters despite, in the complainant’s view, containing no material that would restrict it to access by adults only.
The BBFC viewed the website on 21 and 22 November 2016. We noted that it was a politically minded site containing a large number of articles and posts. While the views expressed may be subject to debate, and some people will disagree
with the positions of the articles and blogs, they were nonetheless expressed in the spirit of providing a legitimate side to an argument. We found no content on the site that would we would classify 18. Daniel Pipes has written up the tale of the
censorship of his website by O2: See article from danielpipes.org O2, the second-largest
mobile telecommunications provider in the United Kingdom, has banned my website, ostensibly only to those under 18 years of age but in fact to everyone using O2. The fine print reads: "To prove your age you'll need to have
your credit card handy. Click Continue below or call our free automated service on 61018 ." In other words, you have to go to immense trouble to read or see my work, something presumably few internet surfers will bother to do. (This is
particularly odd when one recalls that O2 already has the credit card of nearly every one of its customers.) In contrast, O2 makes available without having to prove anything no end of Islamist and related websites, including such
anti-Zionist delights as Al-Muntada Trust, the Palestinian Forum in Britain, and Friends of Al-Aqsa. ...Read the full article from
danielpipes.org
|
|
|