Ofcom Watch

A High Court justice has dismissed a Russian Today complaint that a massive £200,000 fine imposed by Ofcom last year was disproportionate. The court endorsed the TV censor's decision to fine RT for a breach of its impartiality rules.

RT had issued legal complains that Ofcom's decisions were a disproportionate interference with RT's right to freedom of expression and said other stations had received smaller fines for more serious breaches.

Following an investigation in 2018, Ofcom found that RT had broken TV impartiality rules in seven programmes discussing the Salisbury nerve agent attacks. Ofcom said RT had failed to give due weight to a wide range of voices on a matter of major political controversy.

RT has yet to respond to the ruling.

The Sex Business: Me and My Sex Doll
The Sex Business: OAPs on the Game
The Sex Business: Teens Selling Sex

17 June 2019, 22:00,
18 June 2019, 22:00 and
19 June 2019, 22:00

The Sex Business is an observational documentary series on Channel 5 investigating people's sexual choices.

Ofcom received 44 complaints about the third series1 of The Sex Business

The programmes included interviews with: (i) sex workers and images of real sexual activity between the sex workers and their clients; (ii) adults who participate in pornographic films and images of real sex acts; and (iii) people working in the sex doll industry and images of real sexual activity between adults and sex dolls. In summary, the complainants considered that the sexual activity shown in these episodes was unsuitable for broadcast on Channel 5 at 22:00.

Ofcom considered:

• Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that
  material which may cause offence is justified by the context”; and

• Rule 1.19: “Broadcasters must ensure that material broadcast after the watershed, … which contains images and/or language of a strong or explicit sexual nature, but is not ‘adult sex material’ [as defined in Rule 1.184…], is justified by the context”.

Ofcom's decision: Breach of rules 2.3 and 1.19

Ofcom considered that the content featured in the three episodes and detailed in the Introduction was of a strong and explicit sexual nature. Channel 5 also accepted the programmes contained challenging material. The programmes featured real (not simulated) sex acts, including: oral sex, sex with sex dolls and between sex workers and clients, anal sex and masturbation. In addition, the episodes included images of female genitals, erect penises and anal areas as well as sexually explicit language.

Ofcom considered that this was strong sexual content that had the clear potential to cause offence. We therefore went on to consider whether the broadcast of this content was justified by the context

Ofcom considered Channel 5's representations, that very careful consideration was given to the footage to be included in the series and the way in which it should be included. The Licensee said that the more extreme footage obtained was not included in the episodes. In addition, it said that blurring and other devices, such as footage shot at a distance, had been used to minimise offence. However, in Ofcom's view, none of the images were shot at a sufficient distance or angle so as to limit their graphic nature. In addition, the images were not adequately masked with blurring and genital and anal areas and ejaculate were clearly visible. In some cases, no masking was applied at all, resulting in close-up images of female genital areas and erect penises. Furthermore, some of the footage included was filmed by the sex workers or contributors as they were engaged in sexual acts. In Ofcom's view this resulted in clear close-up point of view images showing the actual penetration of the male genitals into the sex dolls and a sex worker performing oral sex on a client's erect penis.

Given the strength of the graphic sexual content broadcast in this series, Ofcom disagreed that scheduling at 22:00 was necessarily appropriate for the broadcast of such strong sexual material, particularly on a freely available public service channel. Ofcom's research Attitudes towards sexual material on television showed that stronger sexual material became more acceptable after 22:00 but especially after 23:00. This indicates that the more explicit the sexual material is, the greater requirement there is for careful contextualisation, which may include later scheduling.

In Ofcom's view the sexual images and language in this documentary were of a very strong sexual nature. The insufficient masking of the images and the inclusion of close-up and mid-range shots resulted in this sexual content being of a graphic and explicit nature. Some of the more graphic images, such as the ejaculate and oral masturbation of an erect penis, were also shown twice within the episode. Although the documentary genre provided editorial justification for the broadcast of sexual material, this was strong and explicit sexual material, broadcast on a public service channel without mandatory restricted access. Ofcom therefore concluded that these episodes were likely to have exceeded the expectations of the audience at this time, even for an observational documentary dealing with sexual themes with a serious and observational editorial purpose. Therefore, viewers were likely to have considered that this stronger sexual material required the strongest contextual justification and broadcasting the series later in the schedule after 23:00 could have helped to provide such justification.

Our Decision is therefore that the offensive content in these programmes exceeded generally accepted standards and was not justified by the context, in breach of Rule 2.3.

It was Ofcom's view that by scheduling strong sexual material at 22:00, Channel 5 had not ensured appropriate protection was provided to under-eighteens and had not reduced the likelihood of children viewing content that was unsuitable for them. For the reasons above, it is therefore Ofcom's Decision that the content also breached Rule 1.19

In light of the previous breaches relating to the second series, and our Decision in this case of breaches of Rules 1.19 and 2.3 in this third series, Ofcom intends to request that Channel 5 attends a meeting to discuss its compliance approach to the scheduling of sexually explicit content

Babecall
Meet the Babes, 18 July 2019 00:30

Babecall is interactive adult chat advertising broadcast on the service Meet the Babes, which is available as part of a standard satellite subscription package. The content consists of presenters inviting viewers to contact them via premium rate telephony services (PRS).

Meet the Babes is available without mandatory restricted access and is situated in the adult section of electronic programme guides ('EPGs'). The licence for the service is held by Escape Channel Limited.

Ofcom received a complaint about physical interaction between a presenter and a member of the production team. The presenter -- who was nude apart from ankle boots and red bra-style lingerie which provided no cover over her breasts -- was positioned on all fours side-on to the camera and appeared to touch her genital area on several occasions during the broadcast. At 00:12:40 the presenter removed the red lingerie.

A section of dialogue was followed by several shots of a partially obscured man (the producer), positioned behind the presenter. Only the man's clothed arm and chest were visible intermittently. Over a period of eight minutes the man stroked and lightly slapped the presenter's buttocks. During this eight-minute period the presenter appeared to simulate that she was engaging in sexual acts with the producer who was positioned behind her and, briefly, in front of her, as she knelt in front of him.

Ofcom considered BCAP Rule 4.2:

Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.

Ofcom decision: Breach of BCAP rule 4.2

Ofcom's published guidance on the advertising of PRS adult chat services (the Chat Service Guidance) sets out what Ofcom considers to be acceptable to broadcast on these services post-watershed. The Guidance states that licensees should: at no time broadcast images of any real or simulated sex acts; take particular care if two or more presenters appear together on-screen. If there is any contact between the presenters of an erotic or sexual nature (for example kissing, stroking or contact between thighs, breasts or genital areas) or any miming or simulation of a sexual act performed by one presenter on another, in Ofcom's view there is a high risk of causing serious or widespread offence against generally accepted standards; and at no time broadcast anal, labial or genital areas or broadcast images of presenters touching their genital or anal areas either with their hand or an object.

In this case, while the producer was not a presenter, in Ofcom's view the female presenter clearly intended viewers to think that she was taking part in sexual acts with a partner. This was reinforced by the presenter's statement before the physical interaction occurred. Further, the presenter was nude and positioned on all fours, side-on to the camera with the producer behind her. The Licensee disputed the strength of the physical contact between the presenter and producer and considered that it considered the material complied with requirements of BCAP Rule 4.2. In our view the contact was clearly intended to be sexual in nature given the other relevant factors, in particular: the presenter's preceding statements to camera, the position of the producer behind the nude presenter and the reaction of the presenter once the producer joined her on set (i.e. thrusting and rocking) to imply interaction of a sexual nature

Our Decision is that this material was in breach of BCAP Code Rule 4.2

In an episode of the comedy programme Heresy , broadcast on BBC Radio 4, the comedian Jo Brand made comments about milkshakes being thrown at politicians, suggesting battery acid could be used instead.

The BBC assessed complaints it received under the BBC First process that the comments were highly offensive and likely to incite violence. The BBC upheld the complaints about offence, but not those about incitement.

Ofcom then received six complaints which had completed the BBC First process. We carefully assessed these complaints against the Broadcasting Code, taking into account the broadcaster’s and the audience’s rights to freedom of expression without undue interference.

We concluded that Ms Brand’s comments had clear potential to offend listeners. However, we considered a range of contextual factors, including the likely audience expectations of this well-known comedian, and long-running comedy programme, which aims to challenge generally accepted ideas through satire. We also took into account that Ms Brand immediately qualified her comments, making it clear they should not be taken seriously or acted on. For these and other reasons set out below, we have concluded that the complaints do not warrant further investigation by Ofcom.