SEL broadcasts footage of women inviting viewers to use premium
rate phone services to engage in sexually explicit chat on the
channel SportxxxBabes. The channel is broadcast free-to-air on
Sky's satellite service.
Ofcom has found that some of the material broadcast by the
channel was too sexually explicit and broke the rules of its
Broadcasting Code.
The regulator received three complaints in early 2007 about
material broadcast by the channel. The material complained of was
extremely sexually explicit, though the most graphic parts of the
picture were pixellated out. Ofcom ruled, though, that the material
was inappropriate.
"Ofcom…concluded that the explicitness of the sexual content was
wholly unacceptable for broadcast on a free-to-air channel," said
its ruling. "It was considered to be ‘adult-sex’ material and fell
under Rule 1.24 [of the Code] and so should have been broadcast
under encryption."
The rules say that channels can show material classified as
'adult-sex' between 10pm and 5.30am, but that the channel must have
a PIN protected encryption system and other systems in place to
ensure that viewers are adults.
Channels must also warn any viewers that might be offended by
content what is about to be shown.
SEL argued that the material did not qualify as 'adult-sex'
material, and that it was generally acceptable for broadcast after
the 9pm watershed. It also said that it should be taken into
account that the material was broadcast in the adult
section of the Sky system.
Ofcom rejected the arguments and said that the material breached
the Code because "the content of the programme was sexually
explicit, its primary purpose was to arouse the audience sexually,
and it did [not] have any or sufficient editorial
justification".
SEL said that Ofcom should show some leniency because the sex
acts pictured were simulated and not real, despite the fact that a
looped voiceover had claimed to viewers that pictured sexual
activity was real and happening at that moment.
Ofcom's Content Sanctions Committee, which decided on the
£20,000 fine, said that the question of whether the acts were
really happening was not the most important one.
"Whether these activities were 'real' or simulated did not alter
the seriousness of the breaches in the opinion of the Committee,"
it said. "They did not obviously appear simulated, and were
intended to be perceived as 'real' to the ordinary viewer."
Ofcom had sent letters to SEL and the operators of similar
channels twice in 2006 warning them about broadcasting explicit
content. The Sanctions Committee said that the size of the SEL fine
should be a deterrent to such broadcasters.
"In deciding on the appropriate size of a financial penalty in
this case, the Committee considered it should be sufficiently
significant to act as a deterrent against a repeat of these or
similar breaches," it said. "The Committee was concerned that
Licensees, especially those who choose to operate in the ‘adult’
market, should understand that breaches of the Code of a serious
nature can have the most significant repercussions."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
