Censor Watch

British made online music videos are to being given age ratings. The BBFC, which is running the initiative, has estimated that one in five videos released will be deemed unfit for those under 12. Video sharing sites YouTube and Vevo have signed up to the scheme and pledged to include the warnings on clips uploaded to their sites. Vevo puts the rating in the top corner of the video, while YouTube includes it in the information beneath.

However some of the world's raunchiest performers, such as Miley Cyrus and Rihanna, are not covered by the scheme and there are no measures in place to enforce the guidelines. A spokesman for Vevo said:

There is no signing in as such or filters -- although this is a next step that may be added in time. At the moment this is about giving parents and users the information they need to make a more informed viewing choice and decision. To be effective it requires that parents also take an active interest in what their children are watching.

Rapper Dizzee Rascal has scored a first, his video Couple of Stacks is the first and so far the only 18 rating under the initiative for strong bloody violence, gore, very strong language . The three and a half minute clip contains extreme violence with the rapper ripping the heart out of a stripping woman, brandishing a knife while covered in blood and decapitating a woman whose body then stumbles around the room. He also holds a family hostage and serves a cake with severed fingers instead of candles. He is shown pulling out a person's eyeball, slitting one woman's throat and cutting another's head in half.

Vivienne Pattison, a moralist campaigner from Media Watch-UK, said:

When parents are surveyed, the two areas that came up as being particularly problematic were soap operas and music videos, those are the two areas that come up again and again as the issue. One in five, that's a huge number of videos.

What happens is one video pushes the boundaries and the next artists is under pressure to do the same in order to get people talking about it. It becomes a great merry-go-round and I think that is a fantastic illustration of exactly where this is gone, it's quite extraordinary.

It's not a magic bullet but it's a fantastic step and I think it will really make a difference. I don't know where we will end up down the line but I would like this to act as a kite mark for music videos. This is not a move about censorship, the videos will all still be there, but I think artists and record companies need to take seriously that if they are targeting young fans they have got to do it responsibly.

On the lack of enforcement of the ratings, she said: You can't go into a shop and buy a 15 rated film without ID and we need to see about extending those protections online.

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed a petition by On Digital Media (ODM) for leave to appeal a Western Cape High Court judgment that Icasa re-consider its decision to licence ODM's porn channels.

The court dismissed the petition on March 17, as there was no reasonable prospect of success.

On December 10 last year, the Western Cape High Court upheld an order to remit a decision on the licensing of the three porn pay channels back to the Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa).

Two in-game ads, a pre-roll YouTube ad and a digital outdoor ad promoted the film Annabelle , rated 15.

• a. An in-game ad, which appeared on the Planet of Cubes app, opened with a shot of two houses at night, and the sound of a scream. A woman was then shown waking her husband and saying, John, next door, I heard a scream. The next scene showed the woman walking through the house and looking up to see another woman holding a doll and whispering, I like your dolls while a man whose clothes were covered in blood walked through a door behind her. The woman said, Just, just take whatever you want and just, just get out. Other scenes included the woman who was holding the doll slumped against a wall covered in blood, some of which dripped into the doll's eye; a woman being dragged across the floor screaming; and a child running towards a woman through a doorway while the woman asked, Who are you? , before transforming into a woman in a blood-stained dress as she reached the door and attacking the other woman.
• b. The same ad appeared on the Wordfeud app.
• c. The same ad appeared as a pre-roll ad on YouTube before a Pokemon film. It also included a section at the beginning which displayed the text, BEFORE THE CONJURING THERE WAS ANNABELLE , and which showed a doll with blood dripping from its eye.
• d. A digital outdoor poster, which was seen at London Bridge train station. Text stated, BEFORE THE CONJURING THERE WAS ... ANNABELLE . A picture of a doll's face appeared, with the text Miss Me? . Issue

Four complainants, some of whose children had seen the ads, challenged whether the following ads were likely to cause fear or distress, and had therefore been irresponsibly placed:

ASA Assessment

1. Upheld complaints about ads (a) and (b)

The apps Planet of Cubes and Wordfeud were rated as suitable for those aged four and over on Apple devices, which meant that they should contain no objectionable material , according to Apple's rating system. They were rated low maturity , on Google Play, which meant they might contain instances of mild cartoon or fantasy violence .

The ad contained several scenes of characters in distress, and reflected the theme of the film from the outset, including through the use of eerie sound effects, and the whispered line, I like your dolls . The scenes including the man whose clothes were covered in blood, the woman who was holding the doll slumped against a wall covered in blood, the blood dripping into the doll's eye, the woman being dragged across the floor screaming, and the child transforming into a woman in a blood-stained dress and attacking the other woman, were likely to be distressing to young and early teenage children.

Although the ASA acknowledged that the ad had the option to skip and that it would have been scaled down to fit a mobile phone screen, we considered that the ad was nevertheless likely to cause distress to young and early teenage children, and that care was therefore needed to ensure responsible targeting. We understood that Warner Bros had asked their media agency to target people aged 16 to 34 with an interest in the horror genre of films, in order to target the ad at an appropriate audience.

We considered, however, that some parents might allow a child to play with the app believing that the content, including all in-app advertising, would be suitable for that age range. In particular, we considered that a parent who might not usually allow a child to browse the internet independently on a device might be more inclined to allow them to play an age-appropriate app. Therefore, we were concerned that an adult and child could share a device within the same browsing session, and there was a risk that the child could have been served the ad while playing Planet of Cubes or Wordfeud.

In light of that risk, and because the way the ad was targeted, it could not take into account the possibility of a child sharing a device with an adult. We considered, therefore, that Warner Bros had not taken the necessary precautions to mitigate the risk of a child viewing the ad by, for example, ensuring that it was served in line with the profile of the apps, and concluded that it had been irresponsibly targeted.

2. Upheld complaints about ad (c)

As in point 1, we considered that the ad was likely to cause distress to young and early teenage children, and would therefore not be suitable for display before content that children were likely to be watching.

We noted that the ad had been age-restricted by being served only to those logged in to an adult's account, and that it was targeted toward users who had demonstrated an interest in horror films. However, we considered that the content of a Pokémon film was likely to appeal to children, and that it would not be unusual for a parent to be logged into their own account when accessing content for their children. In view of the content of the programme material being watched at the time, it was reasonable for consumers to expect that only advertising material that was suitable for a young audience would be shown.

Therefore, we concluded that the ad was inappropriately targeted and was irresponsible.

3. Not upheld complaints about ad (d)

Whilst we acknowledged some people might find the poster mildly threatening and distasteful, we noted that it did not show any scenes of violence. We did not consider the ad likely to cause serious or widespread offence, or to cause undue fear, distress or harm to children. We therefore concluded that it was not irresponsible.

India's Supreme Court has ruled on three internet censorship sections of the Information Technology Act 2000 - Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A.

The draconian Section 66A was originally meant to tackle spam and cyber-stalking but was used by the powerful elite to crack down on online dissent and criticism.

Section 79 was meant to give immunity to internet intermediaries for liability emerging from third-party speech, but it had a chilling effect on free speech because intermediaries erred on the side of caution when it came to deciding whether the content was legal or illegal.

And Section 69A was the web blocking or internet censorship provision, but the procedure prescribed did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and transparency. For instance, when books are banned by courts, the public is informed of such bans but when websites are banned in India, there's no clear message from the ISP.

The Supreme Court upheld 69A, so web blocking and internet censorship in India will continue to happen in an opaque fashion which is worrying.

But on 66A and 79, the landmark judgment protects the right to free speech and expression. It struck down 66A in entirety, saying the vague and imprecise language made the provision unconstitutional and it interfered with the right of the people to know - the market place of ideas - which the internet provides to persons of all kinds .

However, it only read down Section 79 saying unlawful acts beyond what is laid down as reasonable restrictions to the right to free speech in the Constitution obviously cannot form any part of the section. In short, the court has eliminated any additional restrictions for speech online even though it admitted that the internet is intelligibly different from traditional media and might require additional laws to be passed by the Indian Parliament.

An atheist blogger opposed to religious extremism has been hacked to death in the Bangladesh capital, Dhaka, the latest attack on the country's bloggers after an American atheist blogger was killed in the same manner last month.

Washiqur Rahman was repeatedly stabbed by three men in the Tejgaon industrial area of Dhaka. Police arrested two men who were caught at the scene of the crime and recovered three meat cleavers from the spot.

The attack on Rahman came a month after Avijit Roy, a US-based Bangladeshi atheist blogger , was hacked to death at a busy roundabout in Dhaka. Roy's wife Rafida Ahmed Bonya, also a blogger, was seriously injured in the February 26 attack that triggered international outrage.

A social media writer said Rahman was known to write against religious fundamentalism. He used to write using a penname Kutshit Hasher Chhana (Ugly Duckling).

Police compared Rahman's murder to the 2013 killing of blogger Rajeeb Haider. Haider, known as Thaba Baba in the blogging community, was hacked to death on February 15, 2013 near his home at Pallabi in Dhaka.

Parents are in danger of being reported to police by their children's head teachers if they allow them to play video games for over 18s.

A disgraceful threatening letter sent by a group of schools in Cheshire said that parents would be reported for child neglect if they let their kids play games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto , which have an 18 classification.

It warns that if teachers are made aware their pupils have been playing these video games they will contact police and social services.

The letter, sent by Nantwich Education Partnership, said allowing children to play these type of games on Xboxes and Playstations is deemed neglectful . The letter threatens:

If your child is allowed to have inappropriate access to any game or associated product that is designated 18+ we are advised to contact the Police and Children's Social Care as it is neglectful.

Nantwich Education Partnership covers 16 primary and secondary schools in Cheshire.

a. An online video ad promoted the Isuzu D-Max Blade truck. It appeared as a banner ad on various websites, including the advertiser's own. It depicted the truck as the hero in a zombie infested city.

b. The same video appeared as an in-game ad that appeared in the app 'Scrabble Free'.

The ASA received seven complaints.

1. All of the complainants challenged whether the content was distressing and offensive, because it was excessively gory and frightening.
2. Four of the complainants challenged whether ad (a) had been irresponsibly placed where it could be seen by children.
3. Three of the complainants challenged whether ad (b) had been irresponsibly placed in an app that could be played by children.

ASA Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the ad featured a number of zombies that were injured and covered in blood. We noted that while the main protagonist, within the Isuzu truck, was surprised and unsettled by the sudden appearance of zombies, his reaction was measured and he was not shown to be in immediate danger. Similarly, while a woman featured in the ad was shown to be trapped on the roof of a car trying to fend off a group of zombie attackers, we considered it was clear from the man's reaction that he intended to save her. While we acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad unpleasant and unsettling, and that the it would need to be targeted carefully to ensure it was not seen by young and early teenage children, who could be distressed and upset by its content, we concluded that it was not overly graphic, violent or threatening, and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Upheld

We considered that the content of the ad could distress young and early teenage children, and therefore needed to be targeted carefully. We noted that the ad was targeted at users who were identified, through their browsing behaviour, to be male, over 18, and interested in cars. We understood, however, that such targeting could not mitigate the possibility of a child sharing a device, and the same browsing session, with an adult, and therefore seeing the ad during that session. While we appreciated that parents or guardians could take action to minimise that risk by deleting their browsing history or opting out of behavioural advertising, we considered that many parents would not necessarily be aware of such targeting methods or the steps they could take to avoid being served targeted ads. We understood that the network did not serve ads on any sites that were predominantly aimed at children and so the ad would not have appeared on sites of particular appeal to children, even if the device's browsing history indicated that the user was an adult male. We were concerned, however, that the ad could nonetheless appear on sites regularly used by children. We noted from the data provided that sparknotes.com was visited by a large number of individuals aged between the ages of 13 and 17, and that, depending on who else shared the same device, children visiting the site could have been served the ad.

In light of that risk, and because the way the ad was targeted it could not take into account the possibility of a child and adult sharing the same browsing session, we considered that Isuzu had not taken the necessary precautions to mitigate the risk of a child viewing the ad, such as ensuring the ad did not appear on sites regularly used by children.

Despite the targeting steps taken by the advertiser, because the ad appeared on a website regularly used by young teenagers, we concluded that it had been irresponsibly targeted.

3. Upheld

We understood that the ad was targeted to app users depending on their browsing history, and so would only be shown in-app to those who appeared to be over the age of 18. We noted, however, that the app was deemed to be suitable for those aged four and over, and that parents might allow a child to play with the app believing that the content, including all in-app advertising, would be suitable for that age range. In particular, we considered that a parent who might not usually allow a child to browse the internet independently on a device, might be more inclined to allow them to play an age-appropriate app. Therefore, we were concerned that an adult and child could share a device within the same browsing session, and the child could have been served the ad while playing Scrabble Free.

In light of that risk, and because the way the ad was targeted it could not take into account the possibility of a child sharing a device with an adult, we considered that Isuzu had not taken the necessary precautions to mitigate the risk of a child viewing the ad, such as ensuring the ad did not appear in apps with a low age rating.

Despite the targeting steps taken by the advertiser, because the ad appeared in an app which was rated suitable for children, we concluded that it had been irresponsibly targeted.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Isuzu (UK) Ltd to carefully target their ads to avoid the risk of causing undue fear and distress to children.

The National Secular Society has awarded the staff of Charlie Hebdo the annual Secularist of the Year prize, for their courageous response to the terror attack on their Paris office.

Just one week after the attack on 7 January 2015, in which 12 people were killed, the remaining staff of Charlie Hebdo published an edition of the magazine featuring a depiction of Mohammed and an editorial making a passionate defence of secularism and the right to free expression.

NSS president Terry Sanderson said:

Since the events of 7 January in Paris, Charlie Hebdo has become more than a magazine -- it has become an ideal, a symbol of democracy, a rallying cry to those who value freedom and openness in public debate.

The Charlie Hebdo horror has now joined the endless stream of other outrages committed in the name of Islam. The difference is that it prompted a commitment to free speech and secularism on the part of millions of people.

Looked at objectively, blasphemy is a ridiculous concept, transparently invented to protect eminently arguable ideas from challenge. Ridiculous it may be, but it is also lethal.

From the forty or so nominations that we received, there was one that could not be ignored, that was the obvious and only possible winner.

In addition to the main Secularist of the Year award, the NSS also acknowledged a number of others for their work in the past year.

• Lord Avebury was recognised with a special award for his invaluable support of the NSS, and for being a tireless advocate for secularism. Lord Avebury recently tabled a Bill to abolish chancel repair liability and has spoken out in Parliament against collective worship in schools and new legislation allowing prayers to be held as part of council meetings.
  
• Maajid Nawaz, who couldn't attend the event, was recognised for his work at Quilliam, countering Islamic extremism and promoting secularism.
  
• Helen Bailey and Elaine Hession were acknowledged for their efforts in helping the National Secular Society campaign to abolish chancel repair liability.

An app that blanks out swear words in e-books hasn't gone down well among writers including Chocolat author Joanne Harris, who have explained that the app is censoring their work without permission.

The app operates on a sliding scale from clean , which removes only the strongest swear words, to squeaky clean which even takes out damn .

Harris wrote a scathing critique of the Clean Reader application which has been designed to help parents shield their children from strong language. Condemning the app on her blog, in a post titled why I'm saying "fuck you" to Clean Reader , Harris likened the programme to examples of suppression from history. She said:

Anyone who works with words understands their power. Words, if used correctly, can achieve almost anything. To tamper with what is written -- however much we may dislike certain words and phrases -- is to embrace censorship. We've been down this road before. We should know where it leads by now. It starts with blanking out a few words. It goes on to drape table legs and stick fig leaves onto statues. It progresses to denouncing gay or Jewish artists as "degenerate". It ends with burning libraries and erasing whole civilizations from history.

Apps like Clean Reader change the text without the author's permission. They take the author's words and replace them -- sometimes very clumsily -- on the basis of some perceived idea of "bad words" versus "good words". No permission is sought, or granted. There is no opt-out clause for authors or publishers.

Laurie Penny, a journalist and author, added: There's now an app for taking the swearwords out of books. I find this fucking horrifying .

Charlie Stross, a science fiction writer wrote on Twitter: This - from an author's point of view - is an obscenity: algorithmic censorship of ebooks.

Update: How the app works

29th March 2015. See article from freethinker.co.uk

How it works is that you load your ebook into the app via iTunes; you can then select one of three filter levels, from mild censorship to the full monty; and the app does a find-and-replace using a database of "offensive" words selected by the Maughans, replacing them with "clean" versions.

For instance, body parts in the genital region of women are all turned into "bottom"; "fuck" becomes "freak"; "breast" becomes "chest", "whore" becomes "hussy"; and "bitch" becomes "witch" (which could get somewhat confusing if the book actually discusses dogs). "Sex" is changed to "love", "penis" to "groin" and "blowjob" to "pleasure". (See a fuller list here ).

Major UK ISPs must now block 110 piracy related websites after a new High Court order. The latest blocking round was issued on behalf of the major record labels and targets several MP3 download sites as well as a search engine for the cloud hosting service Mega.co.nz.

In a new wave the BPI, which represents the major record labels, has teamed up with music licensing outfit Phonographic Performance Limited to obtain an order targeting a series of MP3 download sites.

A few days ago several providers including Sky, BT and Virgin implemented the new changes, making it harder for their subscribers to reach these sites. The other ISPs are expected to follow suit during the days to come.

Thus far the sealed Court order hasn't been released to the public but the list of 17 sites was confirmed to TorrentFreak by one of the major ISPs, which preferred not to comment on the latest blocking round.

Because the ISPs have given up on defending their position in court, it is now a mere formality for copyright holders to have a pirate site banned. However, the blocking efforts are not without cost. Leaked information previously revealed that even an unopposed application for a blocking order costs copyright holders around £14,000 per website . This brings the total costs of the requesting parties well over a million pounds.

The film was originally classified X for cinema release in 1960, meaning no persons under 16 could be admitted to screenings. The film next entered the BBFC for cinema re-release in October 1987 and video release in 1989. The Examiner reports from 1987, available here, note the visual discretion of the film as potentially PG-level, although the despairing tone of the film and the suicide attempt by one character, of which only the aftermath is shown, was considered more suitably placed at 15.

...Read the full article

An ad for a competition on the Daily Star's website www.dailystar.co.uk and in the newspaper:

a. The website ad, headed Win a date with a Daily Star Page 3 babe! It's a cold miserable winter out there - but as ever your fun-loving Daily Star knows just how to brighten up your lives . The ad featured three photographs, including one photograph showing three women from the waist up, wearing bras and holding champagne flutes, and another photograph showing three women wearing burlesque-style knickers standing close together with their hands on each others' shoulders and waists, their breasts partially covered by their arms. The photographs were captioned WIN: Enter the competition to have a chance of spending a day with a page 3 babe! , DATE: The girls are desperate to meet you! and IRRESISTABLE: Who could turn down the chance to meet one of our babes?! .

b. The newspaper ad featured, on the front page, an image of two women in bikinis under the heading WIN a chance to meet our fab Page 3 girls . On page 3, underneath an image of three women wearing only bikini bottoms, the same text as in ad (a) was headed SPEND A DAY WITH A P3 BABE .

The ASA received 31 complaints, including one from the campaign group Object. Thirty complaints were from members of the public, many of whom had become aware of the promotion through social media.

The complainants, who believed that to offer a date with a page-3 girl as a prize was sexist and objectified women, challenged whether the ad was offensive and socially irresponsible.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA noted the demographic information about the Daily Star's readership and website users, and that the image of three topless women in ad (b) appeared on page 3 of the paper, where similar images routinely appeared. We noted the Daily Star's view that the models were promoted as individuals and were seen as celebrities by some of their readers. We acknowledged that it was not unusual for competition prizes to involve meeting, or having a date , with a celebrity.

We noted the ads referred to the Star Babes as a sizzling prize , and suggested that their visit to the winner's workplace would bring the approval of their colleagues for bagging them this prize and would invoke jealousy in their friends. In the context of a competition in which the prize involved a visit from page 3 glamour models, a job which was based on a woman's attractiveness and in which women posed nude or semi-nude and which therefore inherently involved the objectification of their bodies, we considered the implication was that the prize would be enjoyed or envied on the basis of the women's attractiveness rather than because of their personality or other non-physical qualities. We also noted that the competition prize was described as involving a visit from one of our babes! and two of our top Page 3 girls rather than from specific individuals. We considered the implication was therefore that it did not matter which individual models would be visiting the winner and that the women were presented as interchangeable. In that context, whilst we noted the ads were targeted at Daily Star readers and website users, many of whom would likely have no objection to page 3 itself, we considered it likely that some would nonetheless find the notion of offering women as a prize to be sexist, offensive and socially irresponsible.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the Daily Star to ensure that their future advertising contained nothing that was socially irresponsible or likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Jon observes:

EE's new content filtering system doesn't work properly. No matter how many times someone over 18, tries to switch OFF the filtering system in full, either via the EE iPhone App, via proof of age/ID in an EE store, or directly with EE Customer Services themselves, the Filtering almost always switches itself back ON again.

Sometimes this happens within a few minutes, and sometimes a few hours. Occasionally, it won't come on again, for 24 hours, if you are lucky. Sadly, EE know about this problem, as it's been happening for many months now, and it's a common issue that hasn't been fixed. However, EE will deny this. I can vouch for this, as I am (sadly) an EE customer, that frequently has this problem with the Filtering System limiting my Internet access to some of the most benign sites, it deems adult , like my local arthouse cinema's website, etc.

And I can confirm that I had similar problems when using a T-mobile dongle. The observation is also the source fo much annoyance reported on the Sex and Censorship websites.

Loaded, one of the titles synonymous with the mid-1990s lads' mag boom, is to close after 21 years.

The last issue of the monthly magazine, which launched in 1994, is the April edition which is on sale now. the publisher said in a statement:

As of the current April issue, published on March 26th, Loaded will cease to trade as a printed magazine. We would like to pay tribute to our customers, staff and especially our contributors and editorial team.

Loaded was once one of the the leading titles in a booming lads magazine sector, with sales of 350,000 in 2000. After declining sales, the publishers recently tried a sexed down version but that doesn't seem to have panned out.

manus37 tweeted:

I watched The Big Bang Theory at 12.30pm on Channel 4. They seemed to have cut out the herpes line...seems herpes is a bad word

For the record this was Series 6 Episode 01: The Date Night Variable

Scene: Penny's apartment. Penny is bleaching Amy's upper lip.

Amy: This is so exciting. Soon, my upper lip will be the same fake blonde as my beautiful best friend.

Penny: Hey, this is my natural hair colour.

...

Amy: How long does this stay on?

Penny: Just a couple of minutes. You've really never done this before?

Amy: Once in high school, but I dozed off and woke up with second-degree chemical burns on my face.

Penny: Oh, my gosh, that's awful. The other kids make fun of you?

Amy: No, I had a cover story, I told everyone it was herpes.

Comment: Utterly incomprensible

24th March 2015. From phantom

It's been going on for some time.

It is utterly incomprehensible to me why something as innocent as this sitcom would be cut, but it is happening on a daily basis. It seems any screening before the watershed has any line which is even mildly suggestive removed. The very fact that something so mild can be deemed worthy of cutting does not bode well for any other TV content.

Update: Less Cheer

27th March 2015. Thanks to Jon

UK satellite TV channel GOLD have started broadcasting the classic US comedy CHEERS, at 4pm-5pm on weekday afternoons.

Whilst episodes are not being censored for content, they are censoring the show for running-time issues, to cram in more ads.

I received a Facebook Message from GOLD this morning, that said:

We can confirm that none of the content of Cheers has been removed for compliance or censorship reasons, the only edits we have made are to reduce the episode's overall duration. Unfortunately the original episodes of Cheers are slightly too long to fit into their scheduled time slot on Gold so some material has to be edited out before broadcast. We have passed your comment on to the Gold Scheduling team. Thanks, Gold

This is complete bullshit, of course, as episodes only run between 23-25 minutes when uncut, which leaves plenty of time for ads in a 30-minute timeslot. Their editing just magically happens to cut-out mild cussing (e.g. Holy crap at the end of the pre-credits teaser from Season 1, Episode 1) and/or the pre-credits teaser sequences, which just magically disappear in full, from most of GOLD's transmitted episodes. Amazing! It's not censorship, it's magic! LOL

And when they have UK-made comedy shows, that run between 25-29 minutes in length, such as ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES, FAWLTY TOWERS, PORRIDGE, and/or MRS BROWN'S BOYS, these are always shown in 35-40 minute time-slots. It seems GOLD are flouting their own rules, depending on their mood, as and when they see fit.

Jordan has introduced an emergency item to the next meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, calling for a ban on insulting religion or religious symbols. The draft resolution says insults to religion represent a danger to all humanity.

The Speaker of Jordan's House of Representatives has written to the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to introduce an emergency item titled respect for religions and religious symbols, respect for freedom of opinion and expression. Although the title feigns acknowledgment freedom of opinion and expression, the resolution does nothing of the kind.

The IPU is the international organization of parliaments and describes itself as

The focal point for world-wide parliamentary dialogue and works for peace and co-operation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy.

The draft resolution claims that insulting religion feeds religious extremism and fanaticism, terrorism and violence and says that a way to remedy the problem is to promote mutual respect among believers . The memorandum claims:

Insults to religions and religious symbols are uncivilized actions that have very serious consequences on all humanity, as they prevent the meeting of minds and dialogue and feed religious extremism and fanaticism, terrorism and violence.

The followers of Islam acknowledge the existence of other religions. Islam also gives the followers of those religions the right to exercise their religious practices freely within Islamic States, and regards non-Muslims as citizens and an integral thread in the fabric of the nation.

Freedom of opinion and expression should not be used as a pretext for insulting others' lives, reputations, religions, holy shrines or practices. In today's world, the term 'religious symbols' refers to prophets, places of worship and holy books. As a gesture of commitment, the religion of Islam obliges all its followers to believe in and respect all prophets, and to believe in holy books.

The Speaker has also called for an international convention to prevent disrespect for religions and religious symbols.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said the resolution was the latest in a long line of attempts to impose a global blasphemy law and called for it to be fiercely resisted .

Free speech campaign organisation Article 19 have denounced the proposal and warned that it would legitimise criminal prohibitions on religious insult or so-called 'defamation of religions' and warned that the introduction of prohibitions on insulting religion must be resisted in other international forums, after campaign groups saw recent success in seeing off attempts to introduce de facto blasphemy bans at the UN.

The BPI and BBFC, in partnership with Vevo and You Tube, and UK record companies Sony Music UK, Universal Music UK and Warner Music UK, can announce that age ratings are now being displayed on the music videos they upload to digital service providers Vevo and YouTube.

The age ratings are part of a government-backed pilot by the UK recorded music industry, the BBFC and digital service providers designed to test how age ratings can be applied to music videos released online in the UK, so that family audiences can make more informed viewing decisions.

The pilot has been running since 3 October 2014. The first phase, which has been successful, saw the three major UK record companies (Sony Music UK, Universal Music UK and Warner Music UK) submit to the BBFC for age rating, any music videos for release online in the UK for which they would expect to be given at least a 12-rating (videos deemed not to contain content that would attract at least a 12 rating are not submitted*).

If appropriate, the BBFC then issues either a 12, 15 or 18 rating -- in line with the BBFC Classification Guidelines. As part of the ratings process the BBFC also includes bespoke content advice, called BBFC insight, which explains in more detail why an age rating has been given: for example, that scenes include sexual imagery or other content deemed inappropriate for younger viewers. Once given an age rating, the labels pass on the rating and guidance when releasing their videos to the two digital service providers -- Vevo and YouTube, who, in turn, will display it when the videos are broadcast online.

The pilot will be evaluated later this year based on consumer research, when consideration will also be given to how the scheme can be applied more widely.

Geoff Taylor, BPI Chief Executive, comments:

We want to empower consumers by giving them useful, advance guidance as to the suitability of the music videos they watch, whilst leaving artists the freedom to fully express themselves. The introduction of age ratings on top of the existing parental advisory warnings is a key next step by the UK's record labels, working with BBFC, Vevo and YouTube, that will enable families to make more informed viewing decisions.

David Austin, Assistant Director, BBFC comments:

We are very pleased to see YouTube and Vevo displaying BBFC age ratings and BBFC insight for online music videos submitted to the BBFC for classification as part of this pilot. Parents taking part in our most recent review of the BBFC Classification Guidelines in 2013, expressed their concerns about the content of music videos online, in particular their role in the sexualisation of girls and portrayals of self-harm, drug use and violence in some music video content. We hope this pilot will provide consumers with information to help guide them and their families when accessing music videos online.

Nic Jones, EVP International, Vevo, comments:

Music videos give bands and artists their best opportunity to express personality and individuality to their fans. At Vevo we fully support their right to freedom of expression in the videos they create. We also recognise our role in being able to assist music fans, and their families in particular, to be comfortable with their choice of viewing material and its suitability. In turn age ratings will help Vevo become even more valuable to brands, helping them to connect to their desired audience.

Candice Morrissey, Music Partnerships, YouTube EMEA, comments:

Over the last few months, we have been working with the UK's music industry to help them display the BBFC's age ratings on their music videos on YouTube. These are in addition to the controls we already provide on YouTube including the ability for uploaders to add age warnings to videos and a safety mode to help parents screen out content they do not feel is suitable for their children.

* It is estimated that around 20% of music videos released within the pilot are likely to be subject to a rating -- the large majority are unlikely to contain content that would be rated 12 or greater. This estimate is based on a previous video catalogue audit of one of the companies taking part in the pilot.

A website (store.americanapparel.co.uk) featured a product page for the Lips Print Cotton Spandex Sleeveless Thong Bodysuit . A female model was featured in four images wearing the advertised product. One of the images showed her from the back with her buttocks visible.

The complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and offensive, because it portrayed a sexualised image of a model who the complainant considered looked under 16 years of age.

American Apparel (UK) Ltd believed the image did not represent an underage model and said the model shown was 20 years old. They said the ad depicted the advertised product from various angles and included an image of the thong component of the bodysuit. They believed the image was consistent with standards contained in similar ads.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA acknowledged the ad depicted the advertised product from various angles. We considered the model had a youthful appearance and that some consumers were likely to regard her as being younger than 16 years of age. The model was shown looking back at the camera over her shoulder with her buttocks visible. We considered that readers were likely to interpret the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature. In conjunction with the youthful appearance of the model, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence.

The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told American Apparel (UK) Ltd to ensure future ads did not include images that inappropriately sexualised young women or were likely to cause serious offence.

Offsite Comment: ASA threats adults as children

26th March 2015. See comment from strangethingsarehappening.com

It's so easy to trash the Advertising Standards Authority -- who, as I must constantly point out, have no more legal authority than a bloke waving a placard in the middle of the street, and possibly far less common sense -- that I only do it sparingly. But once again, they have made a decision that beggars belief, going far beyond a mere judgement on issues of taste and decency and entering into a world of thought crime that ironically makes them sound like a group of repressed, twisted perverts.

...read the full comment

Mortdecai is a 2015 USA action comedy by David Koepp.
Starring Johnny Depp, Olivia Munn and Ewan McGregor.

Juggling some angry Russians, the British Mi5, his impossibly leggy wife and an international terrorist, debonair art dealer and part time rogue Charlie Mortdecai must traverse the globe armed only with his good looks and special charm in a race to recover a stolen painting rumored to contain the code to a lost bank account filled with Nazi gold.

US: Uncut and MPAA R rated for:

• 2015 Lions Gate (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon released on 12th May 2015
• 2015 Lions Gate R1 DVD at US Amazon released on 12th May 2015

It is normal practise for Hollywood studios to pep up the home video sales of failed box office movies with an Unrated Version or perhaps an uprated version (eg an R rated version of a PG-13 movie. But the producers have decided to go in the opposite direction for home video releases for Mortdecai. An optional kiddified PG-13 version of Mortdecai will be offered on VoD.

Whereas the uncut theatrical version was rated R for some language and sexual material , the PG-13 version receives is rating for sexuality including references and innuendo, action/violence and brief strong language.

It's a decision that has fascinated many, including Scott Mendelson who writes for Forbes:

I'm not really sure that the reason Johnny Depp's Mortdecai flopped was because all of those young Charlie Mortdecai fanatics weren't able to get into the theater on account of its R-rating. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Mortdecai will be arriving on DVD, Blu Ray on May 12th while arriving on Digital HD services on May 5th . Here's the weird part: While the film is being offered on physical media and VOD in the theatrical R-rated version, it is also being offered on Digital HD in an edited PG-13 version. That's right, Lionsgate isn't offering the Johnny Depp/ Gwyneth Paltrow comic crime caper in an unrated version with additional violence or sex tossed back in. No, they're going the opposite route, offering a PG-13 version of the film. And I quote: And now, even more comedy lovers can experience the hilarity with the uproarious PG-13 cut of the film, Mortdecai PG-13 , available exclusively on Digital HD and On Demand.

...read the full article

The developer of the Devil May Cry video game, Ninja Theory has censored a snippet of sexually suggestive dialogue from the action adventure's Definitive Edition re-release.

The game's new version for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One supercedes the 2002 original version.

The original scene sees demon antagonist Mundus discussing his evil plans with fellow demon and mistress Lilith.

Mundus : I will control the world through debt. I have absolute power.

Lilith: The world is at last your bitch , as am I. Nothing left but to grab it by the hair, bend it over and -

Mundus grunts

Lilith: What's the matter? Wait - what's the matter?

The latter part of the dialogue in bold is cut from the definitive version.

Chief creative director Tameem Antoniades unconvincingly claimed that this wasn't a PC clean up. He said:

We did make an edit to the opening cut-scene. It wasn't a case of censorship as there are far more suggestive scenes in the game. We felt that scene in particular drags on a little bit for the opening sequence and frankly, we didn't like the line.

The edit does not affect the game play.

A new report into online safety from Northamptonshire Police & Crime Commissioner Adam Simmonds comes to some bizarre conclusions about video games playing by youngsters.

In particular he reports that video games that ask players to participate in extreme acts of violence such as massacring civilians and torturing people should be labelled AO (Adult Only) to warn parents they are not suitable for children.

The press release for the report acknowledges that an 18 rating already exists but loses the plot a bit when starting to explain the difference:

While an 18 + certificate already exists warning parents and children of explicit content, there have been a number of recent controversies surrounding the release of high profile video games. Grand Theft Auto V, one of the most expensive computer games ever made, has caused outrage for including a torture scene in which the player must pull teeth and electrocute an unarmed man. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, players are asked if they wish to play a proactive part in an airport civilian massacre. The report found that 26% of children had accessed games that they knew they were underage for with over one in 10 children aged 11 saying they had downloaded Call of Duty.

The press release also includes some unexplained, maybe fanciful ideas about providing ' a parental lock as standard'. Presumably he has picked up something from default on internet website blocking system recently introduced by ISPs. The press release blathers on:

The report also suggests the video games industry provides a parental lock as standard to help parents protect their children from extremely violent and explicit images. If the industry fails to take greater responsibility, then the Government should consider banning certain games altogether.

One assumes that his selling technique of quoting a few shocking stats about children's media usage and then waving his arms a bit, and offering some ill defined censorial solution is a hangover from working for Christian advocacy group CARE and for the religious campaigning MP, Gary Streeter. (See article from en.wikipedia.org )

Social media users who share content that has been subject to a legal complaint in Turkey will be punished, according an omnibus bill currently being debated in parliament.

Internet censors at the Telecommunications Directorate (TÝB) will be able to decide for the removal or blocking of Internet content based on vague claims about "protection of national security and public order" in the omnibus bill, and users who then share such content will also be punished.

On March 20, parliament approved a key article of the contentious omnibus bill that gives power to the prime minister and other ministers to shut down websites within four hours. The approval came just six months after a similar bill was overturned by the Constitutional Court.

The TÝB could enforce the ministry's request as a blanket ban of the website if deemed necessary, within a maximum four hours. The TÝB would then submit the decision to the judge of a criminal court of peace within 24 hours for approval. The judge would have to issue a ruling within 48 hours. If no verdict is issued, the ban would automatically be revoked.

According to the law, the TÝB could also file criminal complaints by applying to prosecutors regarding the content of the website. ISPs or web hosts would be required to submit the necessary information to help locate those being censored through a court order. Providers that do not identify censored account holders could be given hefty fines Authorities would also be able to revoke their provider licenses in Turkey.

Welcome to New York, Abel Ferrara's movie starring Gerard Depardieu as a character inspired by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, won't be released in New York.

In fact, the director's cut seen in Europe won't be released at all in the US, and Ferrara is unimpressed by the censorship. Ferrara speaks of the producer's cut of the film:

My film says 'no means no' and 'violence to women is not an option. Their film says, 'this is an innocent man being harassed by the NYPD.' It lets DSK off the hook.

Ferrara says IFC, the French distributing company that produced the film, have violated his right to the final cut, and butchered his critically acclaimed movie to be less-damning of DSK. The crucial scene where DSK is depicted as raping hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo is now edited as a flashback -- a dream the maid has.

Ferrara is calling for a boycott of the film when IFC opens it in a theater in Los Angeles and releases it online.

Wild Bunch and IFC deny they buckled to pressure from Strauss-Kahn and his lawyers to whitewash the story. IFC said in a statement{

We offered Mr. Ferrara an opportunity to edit his own R-rated version of the film at our expense, but he did not respond.

Street preacher Michael Overd has been found guilty of using threatening or abusive words after making homophobic remarks during a sermon delivered in Taunton High Street.

Overd was ordered to pay £250 to a passer-by who had been 'offended' by the preacher's comments, and he initially refused, at which point judge Shamim Qureshi threatened the preacher with a prison sentence. He has been ordered to pay total costs of £1200.

Overd intends to appeal his conviction and said I follow my Lord and leader, so I won't tone down.

The street preacher was charged with a public order offence, after complaints were made by members of the public that he had made homophobic and Islamophobic remarks. In particular he quoted Leviticus 20:13 :

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (English Standard Bible)

The BBC reports that the judge told the preacher he seemed to enjoy testing the laws on free speech to their limits . Overd was also told that he should not have quoted from Leviticus 20:13 when speaking about homosexuality , according to Christian Today, who also report that the judge suggested that there were other verses he could have chosen if he wanted to talk about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Judge Qureshi also works as a judge for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which aims to help Muslims resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law.

Overd was found not guilty on two other charges, which included causing racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress after he made critical remarks about the Muslim religious character Mohammed.

The National Secular Society has previously raised concerns about the trial's implications for free speech. Terry Sanderson, NSS president, said the ruling appeared to make the quoting of certain passages of the Bible illegal:

Whilst we all want to encourage public civility, there is a higher principle at stake. As long as there is no incitement to violence, then people should be allowed to speak freely without fearing legal repercussions.

An outdoor cinema in Adelaide has cancelled a planned screening of Fifty Shades of Grey after whinges from the Australian Christian Lobby.

Australian Christian Lobby claimed that it was concerned the film about a sadomasochistic relationship may be seen by children who are outside the cinema.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton claimed to the Advertiser that the movie tended to glorify sexual violence as being acceptable:

The message of the film is bad enough, let alone the potential for children or young people to walk past and be exposed to sexual violence against women.

The cinema said that it recognised concerns children may hear or see parts of the film from outside the confines of the cinema, but said it was built to avoid that issue, including the use of 2m high fencing and additional fencing panels to block views. A number of movies rated MA15 have been shown at the cinema already this year, without complaints.

Top Gear
BBC Two, 2 February 2014

On 2 February 2014 Top Gear broadcast an item comparing hatchback cars from the 1980s with their modern equivalent. The presenters each chose a car. Richard Hammond's choice was a Vauxhall Nova, which the other two presenters felt was inferior to their cars and comments were made about this in relation to Richard Hammond's lack of style. When they arrived at the motor circuit to race their cars, Jeremy Clarkson stated:

We arrived at the terrifying Shelsley Walsh Hill Climb. Germany has the Nurburgring, America has Pikes Peak, we have this. It's more than half a mile long and at the bottom of this fearsome river of tarmac we were given more details of our challenge.

Sometime later, after the other two presenters had completed the circuit, a voice-over from James May said As I pondered on that, Jeremy prepared the course for Hammond's Nova. Jeremy Clarkson was then seen putting up a placard on a wooden hut on which Pikey's Peak was written. Richard Hammond was then shown driving his car up to the start line.

The initial complaint stated that the sign had no relevance to the programme and was:

Grossly offensive and racist to a minority community, the Gypsy Traveller community. They are one of the 9 protected characteristics within the Equality Act 2010 and do not deserve to be treated like this, especially not on national TV.

The complaint was escalated through the full and long BBC complaints procedure until reaching the rarely achieved appeal to the BBC Trust, who concluded:

The Appeal Committee wish to state that it had carefully considered the case made by the complainants and the information they provided, and had accepted that the word pikey did have the potential to be deeply offensive to the Gypsy and Traveller communities, most notably when specifically attributing negative characteristics to these minority groups. The Committee was also mindful that some words, including pikey , can be used in an abusive context. The Committee therefore advised programme makers to bear in mind the potential for offence this word may have in some circumstances and advised extreme care and sensitivity when employing it in programming. Although the Committee accepted that the word pikey has evolved to have a meaning distinct from the Gypsy and Traveller communities, it nevertheless advises considerable caution in its use.

Finally the Committee noted that the complainants wanted the Editorial Guidelines to directly address the possible dual usage of the word pikey . The Committee considered that this was not necessary because the Editorial Guidelines were sufficiently clear.

Finding: not upheld

Update: Ofcom takes up the complaint

6th May 2015. See article from telegraph.co.uk

Ofcom has confirmed that it was investigating a complaint about Top Gear over the use of the word pikey .

A campaign organisation that circumvents Chinese website blocks has said it has come under a distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) instigated by the Chinese authorities.

Greatfire called the attack an attempt to enforce censorship and noted in a tweet:

China internal docs show military, Ministries of State & Public Security and rogue operators used to wage cyberwar

Greatfire has tracked which sites are blocked in China and recently began offering a mirroring service to try to restore them for Chinese users. Similar to the campaign started by Reporters Without Borders last week, it set up content distribution networks (CDNs) using the same hosting services as many entities on which China relies. In a statement published on its website, Greatfire said the attacks started on 17 March and added:

We are receiving up to 2.6 billion requests per hour which is about 2,500 times more than normal levels. Likely in response to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) , we've experienced our first ever distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

In theory, the method provided protection to Greatfire because, to be sure that the blocked websites remained inaccessible, attackers would have to take down the whole hosting service - including many sites that China wanted to remain live. However, in practice, the attackers managed to find the individual URLs of the sites the authorities sought to block and bombarded them, in a more targeted attack, said Prof Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey. He added that keeping the sites online would require the purchase of more bandwidth, adding that he consequently believed the Chinese authorities wanted to put financial pressure on Greatfire.

A committee of the British Parliament has proposed legal reforms to Britain's intelligence agencies that are mostly cosmetic and would do little to protect individual privacy.

In a report published on March 12, the Intelligence and Security Committee acknowledged that agencies like MI5 collect, sift through and examine millions of communications. Most of this is legal, the committee said, and justified by national security. It proposed a new law that would tell people more about the kind of information the government collects about them but would not meaningfully limit mass surveillance. That is hardly sufficient for a system that needs strong new checks and balances.

As things stand now, intelligence agencies can monitor vast amounts of communications and do so with only a warrant from a government minister to begin intercepting them. Lawmakers should limit the amount of data officials can sweep up and require them to obtain warrants from judges, who are more likely to push back against overly broad requests.

The parliamentary committee, however, did not see the need to limit data collection and concluded that ministers should continue to approve warrants because they are better than judges at evaluating diplomatic, political and public interests. That rationale ignores the fact that ministers are also less likely to deny requests from officials who directly report to them.

The committee's acceptance of the status quo partly reflects the fact that Britons have generally been more accepting of intrusive government surveillance than Americans ; security cameras, for instance, are ubiquitous in Britain. But the committee itself was far from impartial. Its nine members were all nominated by Prime Minister David Cameron, who has pushed for even greater surveillance powers.

The largest blogging platform of the world, WordPress.com, has been banned in Pakistan which a tech blog says has been done on orders of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).

According to the ProPakistani blog, who claims to have been confirmed by an anonymous source within PTA, reports that WordPress.com has been blocked due to references to the Pakistan Day. The exact nature of threat on WordPress.com that triggered the blocking is unreported.

The blog also reports the ban might be lifted in next two days

PTA has a history of blocking websites without giving any prior notice or reason of doing so.

The BBFC writes:

The BBFC is introducing a new Classification Framework for film and video, to filter video and website content available to customers under the age of 12 via mobile networks. The change on the EE networks will take effect from 16th March 2015.

EE restricts access to content classified as 18 and over on its mobile network as default for all customers, but offers three types of settings Off , Moderate and Strict giving customers the option to choose what content lock is right for them. The new Classification Framework is based on the BBFC's PG standard and will be added to EE's Strict content setting which can be changed on the device at any time.

David Austin, Assistant Director, BBFC said:

We first provided a framework for Mobile Operators to restrict access to content via mobile networks by customers aged under 18, in September 2013. We are pleased to be able to provide an additional Classification Framework for EE, to allow them to restrict content unsuitable for users under the age of 12. The Framework takes into account the same issues the BBFC considers when age rating a film or DVD and defines content which meets the BBFC's PG Guidelines and is therefore suitable for those under 12.

The Classification Framework is a living document and will be updated regularly to reflect evolving public attitudes and societal concerns. It has been developed using the BBFC's Classification Guidelines, these are based on large scale public consultations involving around 10,000 people, and are revised every 4-5 years.

And indeed the rules are strict

Sex

• sexualised posing, dancing or gestures
• sight of sexual activity unless discreet, infrequent and implied only
• sight of sex toys and paraphernalia
• moderate or crude sex references
• nudity in a sexual context
• sight of genitals in a work with no apparent educational purpose
• sex education and advice which is inappropriate for children aged under 12 (this will include detailed discussion of topics such as abortion or sexual positions and performance)
• verbal or visual references to bondage and other BDSM activities

Violence and Threat

• moderate or strong violence
• emphasis on injuries or blood, gory moments, which may be animated
• prolonged or intense frightening sequences
• moderate physical and psychological threat and horror
• visual or verbal references to sexual violence

Surely a rule such as the clause that bans 'verbal references to sexual violence' would mean that all newspaper websites and perhaps all news site in general would have to be blocked along with daytime TV. The rules don't seem very will adapted to website usage. There doesn't seem to be any sense of practicality in applying the rules to large websites. Does a single use of strong language in a 12 thousand page website generally useful to kids, mean that the entire site has to be blocked?

Representative Candice Miller is a Republican pas proposed a restructuring of Immigration and Customs Enforcement away from its current department and set it up as an agency all on its own.

Miller's bill, HR 877, would also create the position of Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who'd have the power to:

Investigate and, where appropriate, refer for prosecution, any criminal violation of Federal law relating to or involving ... (B) customs, trade, or import or export control, including the illicit possession, movement of, or trade in goods, services, property, contraband, arms, instruments of terrorism, items controlled or prohibited from export, pornography , intellectual property, or monetary instruments...

The bill is being referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security for consideration before being brought to a vote by the full House-

A memo from the NBC Universal-owned network Bravo channel recently leaked onto the internet explaining the really specific way strong language is bleeped out. The rules are:

• Asshole -- bleep "ass" and keep "hole
• Bullshit -- bleep "it" and keep "bullsh (we cannot hear any of the "it")
• Fag -- must bleep the entire word; no portion of the word can be audible
• Faggot -- must bleep the entire word; no portion of the word can be audible
• Fuck -- keep "f" & bleep "uck" (we cannot hear any of the "k")
• Fucking -- keep "f" & bleep "uck" (and okay to leave the ing) (again, we cannot hear any of the "k")
• Shit -- "keep "sh" & bleep "it" (we cannot hear any of the "t")
• Shitting -- keep "sh" & bleep "it" and okay to leaving the "ing" (again, we cannot hear any of the "t")
• Motherfucking -- keep "mother" & "ing" and bleep all of "fuck"
• Retard -- must bleep the entire word; no portion of the word can be audible
• Tranny -- keep the "tr", bleep the "anny"
• Beaner -- keep the "er", bleep the "bean"
• Jap -- keep the "J", bleep the "ap"
• Midget -- keep the "mi" , bleep the "dget"

There were also 2 words that even the memo writer couldn't even write:

• The N and C words must always be bleeped

South Africa's Film and Publications Board (FPB) is expecting to be granted the power to order an administrator of any online platform to take down any content that the Board may deem to be potentially harmful and disturbing to children of certain ages.

The censors have generated a 14-page set of draft rules for online content that would, in theory, have given it the power to order Wikipedia et al to remove images, and then send them an invoice for the cost of doing so.

For Video on Demand services, the board has proposed co-cesnorship, which will allow each streaming provider to classify its own content with an in-house team of people after they are trained, for no more than five days, by the FPB.

By June 2016, everything such streaming providers make available to South African audiences must be rated. That may prove a challenge for in-house teams too, so the FPB draft regulations make another concession -- content classified under another system can be deemed classified by the FPB, if the regimes are sufficiently similar. In practice, a 13 (language) or 16 (nudity) classification imposed by regulators in the US or Europe will be accepted for South African use.

The censors look set to become very nasty about what the board describes as self-generated content. This, the draft rules say, could include a drawing, picture, illustration or painting; recording or any other message or communication, including a visual presentation, placed on any distribution network including, but not confined to, the internet .

Streaming services will be responsible for their own classification expenses, and those who distribute self-generated content can expect an invoice from the FPB once it has decided to classify such content of its own accord. So it appears that finding harmful content is the driver behind an expected eight-fold increase in the money the FPB says it will need to police the online space.

This week the department of communications, under which the FPB falls, published its budget forecasts. In the last financial year, the budget shows, the FPB spent under R1-million for online and mobile content regulation . By 2016 that is expected to increase to R8.2-million.

The department of state security is expected to release, within weeks, a first draft of the Cybercrimes and Related Matters Bill. That law is being drafted behind closed doors, but is understood to be a clear victory for the state security department over the department of telecommunications and the department of communications.

Don't Lose Your Head is a 1966 UK action comedy adventure by Gerald Thomas.
Starring Kenneth Williams, Sidney James and Jim Dale.

Cut by the BBFC for a PG rated 1966 cinema release. Presumably subsequent home video releases are the same cut version.

Summary Notes

The time of the French revolution, and Citizen Robespierre is beheading the French aristocracy. When word gets to England, two noblemen, Sir Rodney Ffing and Lord Darcy take it upon themselves to aid there French counterparts. Sir Rodney is a master of disguise, and becomes "the black fingernail", scourge of Camembert and Bidet, leaders of the French secret police...

UK: Passed A (PG) after category cuts for:

• 1966 cinema release

UK: Presumably the cut cinema version was passed PG for:

• 2003 Carlton R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• 1987 Video Collection International VHS

Thanks to Vincenzo. The BBFC cuts were:

• Reel 1 - Change "f-f-f-fishing" to "fishing."
• Reel 1 - Remove "... two digits rampant" and accompanying gesture.
• Reel 4 - Remove Bidet's reaction, and question "Get what out?" after Camembert's line "Get it out!"
• Reel 4 - Remove the line "You've always had magnificent balls."
• Reel 4 - Remove the line "By the look of him, he isn't even armed."
• Reel 5 - Remove the words "... before you feel a big one."
• Reel 6 - Remove the line "You've got two "F's" - surely you can spare an "f" for me?"
• Reel 6 - Remove the lines "He's no use with any sort of weapon", "You wouldn't say that if you'd seen him in the rose arbour."
• Reel 8 - Remove the line "I didn't see any harm in letting her have a pluck."
• Reel 8 - Remove the line "That was a hair raising experience."

Comment: Magnificent Balls

21st March 2015. thanks to Braintree

The line You've always had magnificent balls is said to be cut but I'm sure its included. That very line is included in the opening montage of the theatrical That's Carry On so unless it's not in the original film and the cut clip is only seen in the compilation ( which was made 10 years later) it would indicate that at least that cut is restored to the film.

It was the first or second of the Rank films , now owned by ITV and it wasn't until Carlton/ITV got hold of them that the original 15 version of Carry On England was seen again. Uncut for an AA it lasted about a week in the cinema where it bombed and was withdrawn and recut for an A. It was the A version that played on tv , was released on video etc. But the uncut version was retained so perhaps the uncut versions of the other Rank films are also in the vaults.

When Carlton released England on dvd well over a decade ago it was something of a treat to actually get a choice to watch either version. Shame it had to be one of the worst of the series. The disc with dvd/magazine collection only included one version (not sure which one)

The Duff is a 2015 USA comedy by Ari Sandel.
Starring Bella Thorne, Mae Whitman and Robbie Amell.

A high school senior instigates a social pecking order revolution after finding out that she has been labeled the DUFF (Designated Ugly Fat Friend) to her prettier more popular friends.

UK: Passed 12A for infrequent strong language, moderate sex references after BBFC advised pre-cuts for:

• 2015 cinema release

The BBFC commented:

• This film was originally seen for advice, at which stage the company was advised it was likely to receive a 15 classification but that their preferred 12A could be achieved by removing a scene involving strong sex references. When the film was submitted for formal classification, this sequence had been removed and the film was classified 12A.

Ofcom gets heavy with TV broadcasters. The TV censor explains (with MF emphasis added):

In Ofcom's Annual Plan 2013/2014, we committed to review how we license television and radio services and enforce general licence conditions and content standards on those services. Our aim in this work was to increase protection of audiences by: ensuring licensees are fully aware of their obligations; detecting non-compliant content and conduct more effectively; and enforcing against it robustly. We have now concluded a comprehensive review of our licensing and content standards enforcement processes. We are now implementing some changes, detailed below, to strengthen our processes. We did not conduct a consultation as part of this review as it did not involve any proposed change to our published procedures.

Content monitoring

In the past, Ofcom has generally conducted ad hoc monitoring, as required. We are now in the process of expanding our content monitoring programme to increase our ability to detect content which raises issues of potential harm to the audience. This will enable us to check whether licensees found in breach of our rules and licence conditions, and those on whom we have imposed sanctions, have improved their compliance. It will also enable us to check content broadcast on channels/stations about which we receive low numbers of complaints. Any investigations and Findings which result from our content monitoring will be published in the Broadcast Bulletin in the normal way.

Compliance investigations

Licensees are required by a condition in their licences to have sufficient compliance procedures in place to ensure compliance with Ofcom's codes and licence conditions. To detect serious and systemic compliance problems as early as possible, and therefore protect audiences from potential harm, we have implemented a new enforcement approach. In cases where we are concerned about a licensee's compliance procedures, based on its recent compliance history, we will conduct an investigation under our General procedures for investigating breaches of broadcast licences1.

'Assistance' for licence applicants and licensees

To improve the overall compliance of our licensees, we will work to actively 'assist' applicants and licensees in their understanding of their regulatory obligations.

Meetings

In addition to the meetings we already hold with existing licensees, we will be 'inviting' new licensees to meet with us. When a new licence is issued or awarded, the licensee will receive an invitation to attend a meeting with Ofcom. During the meeting we will 'offer' general support on regulatory obligations and the application of our codes, rules and licence requirements in order to provide licensees with a toolkit to devise and/or review their own compliance arrangements to ensure they are sufficiently robust.

A Burma court has jailed a New Zealand bar manager and two Burmese colleagues for two-and-a-half years for supposedly insulting religion by using a psychedelic image of Buddha wearing headphones to promote their bar.

Victims New Zealander Phil Blackwood, bar manager Htut Ko Ko Lwin and bar owner Tun Thurein had all pleaded not guilty . They were sentenced to jail with labour.

Rights groups condemned the verdict as an assault on freedom of expression and called for the trio's release. Matt Smith, executive director of the Bangkok-based group Fortify Rights said:

The authorities are clearly trying to make an example with this case, but ironically all it has done is hurt the image of Burma and Buddhism.

These men expressed contrition for what they said was a mistake.

At a hearing in December, Blackwood said he had not intended to offend Buddhism when he posted the image on the bar's Facebook page to advertise a cheap drinks night. He said he had removed the image and posted an apology when he realised it was being shared online and provoking outrage.