Sophie's PDP Blog.

Hello sweeties, I am Ofcom, here to censor some images that have been thrust upon me. So here we go. Enjoy it, and don't be offended, or you are a twat*

IMAGE ONE

Ofcom would not have a problem with this website, as it is in the context of sex education, and as the broadcasting code states, this is acceptable.

Broadcasting code:
1.17: Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is a serious educational purpose.

IMAGE TWO

As with the first image, Ofcom would not censor this image as it is acceptable to have detailed anatomical drawings in the context of sex education.

IMAGE THREE

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned this image of Sophie Dahl in December 2000. As Ofcom took on the responsibility of the ASA, they would react to the hundreds of complaints in a similar fashion.
Like the ASA did, they would argue that the image was acceptable in women's magazines, as it would be suitable for the target audience, but was not appropriate for a poster campaign with the image emblazened on the streets for anyone to come across**
Broadcasting code:
1.18 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the content.

IMAGE FOUR

This photograph by Kevin Carter would not be censored by Ofcom as long as it is fitting with the editorial it is broadcast in. Ofcom would encourage broadcasters to warn viewers that the image may be disturbing.

IMAGE FIVE

Ofcom does not have the power to ban films (unfortunately, though secretly we wish we did.) What would the BBFC do? Or “WWTBBFCD?”. Go to someone else’s blog for that answer my friends.

IMAGE SIX

Again we shall consult the broadcasting code...
Broadcasting code:
1.17: Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is a serious educational purpose.
With this in mind, I think that Ofcom would not have a problem with this image, as it promotes safe sex. However, I do think they would be wary of the context of the image. It would not, for example, be a suitable poster for a primary school.

Addendum:
Ofcom is wary of the presence of a ring on the lady’s index finger. This is the custom of a Jewish wedding ceremony (though granted, many women afterwards move it to the ring finger). However, Ofcom is concerned that the creator of this image is suggesting that Jews carry AIDS. This is of course a shocking thing to say, so Ofcom would like to further investigate the creator’s intention before coming to a final decision. The ring on the gentleman’s left hand also leaves something to be desired.

IMAGE SEVEN

Ofcom did not prevent broadcasters from showing the lead up to the execution of Saddam Hussein. However, they do not have any regulatory power over the internet, so the mobile phone video on Youtube has remained unregulated***
Ofcom had this to say about the matter:
"We are dealing now in continuums. Audiences have different expectations if they are watching BBC, Fox TV, or YouTube. Content regulation needs to evolve to address legitimate areas of public interest while also reflecting these different shades of expectation."

IMAGE EIGHT

MYRA HINDLEY by Marcus Harvey

The only part of the code which may be considered to have been breached is,
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by context. Such material may include…humiliation,…violation of human dignity.

However due to the context of the piece in an Art gallery, where one may expect controversy and shocking images, I think Ofcom would have no problem with this image.

After all, Chris Morris got away with a song about Myra Hindley with the following lyrics:
“Every time I see your picture, Myra/I have to phone my latest girlfriend up and fire her/And find a prostitute who looks like you and hire her/Oh, me oh Myra,”

IMAGE NINE

Ofcom would not have the power, or indeed the desire, to regulate Gilbert & George’s shit. As with Marcus Harvey’s piece, in the context of an Art Gallery, people are to expect some sort of shit.

IMAGE TEN

This is a still from Imogen-Who-Was-Once-On-Big-Brother's sex video. Ofcom would not, as my friend suggests regulate it "phwoar", but would instead deem it unsuitable for broadcast, unless it was on a pay-per-view channel.
I am not sure of the entire content, but here's a little clue...


Ofcom signing off...

Sophie x

*Not the opinion of Ofcom, but of a rather loquacious Scriptwriting student.
**Pun very much intended.
***I did some “research” on Youtube, and though I am still anti-censorship, I found it terribly difficult to watch. But that’s just my crazy belief against execution.