GTA IV Watch: Passed by New Zeland censor

The Society For the Promotion of Community Standards lobbyed the Film and Literature Board to ban GTA IV.
It’s good to see the board have decided that New Zealand’s video game fans should not be denied the freedom to buy and play GTA IV just because these self appointed moral guardians don’t want them to be able to.

From the Melon Farmers:
 
New Zealand Board of Review clear Grand Theft Auto IV

Permalink
Based on article from buttonmasher.co.nz 
 
New Zealand’s Film and Literature Board of Review has reconfirmed the earlier decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification to grant the “uncut” version of GTA IV an R18 classification in New Zealand.

The nutters of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards had applied for a review of the classification and claimed:

that players are encouraged to commit wantonly breach the criminal law and commit acts that are crimes against persons and property

that the constant stream of obscenities in the game advances misogyny, and demeans, degrades, and dehumanises women in particular

that the dominant effect of the game is to titillate, entertain and engage players within the mindset of an action drama that glamorises: criminal activities, the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty, drug-taking, the killing of law enforcement officers and innocent members of the public etc.

In upholding the R18 rating for the game, the Review Board considered a submission from Stan Calif, director of First Games. The Board accepted Stan’s point that committing acts of crime in the game are not without consequence – such acts always draw a rapid Police response – and found that the game does not promote or encourage criminal acts. The satirical nature of the game also helped lessen the impact of violent acts in the game.
 
“that players are encouraged to commit wantonly breach the criminal law and commit acts that are crimes against persons and property.”

Yes they are. But in a VIDEO GAME. And against FICTIONAL persons and property.
But like all self appointed moral guardians this lot believe that people who play video games are stupid and will go out and do what they do in the games on the streets and to real people.

“that the constant stream of obscenities in the game advances misogyny, and demeans, degrades, and dehumanises women in particular.”

This is this group’s personal view. That is no reason to ban GTA IV.

“that the dominant effect of the game is to titillate, entertain and engage players within the mindset of an action drama that glamorises: criminal activities, the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty, drug-taking, the killing of law enforcement officers and innocent members of the public etc.”

Again another personal opinion. The Society For the Promotion Of Community Standards clearly believes New Zeland’s censors should be dictating what people can and cannot view as entertainment.

The society has waged a virulent war against the GTA series lobbying for the games to be banned. Behind their campaign is a belief that video game players cannot be trusted to play these games without wanting to go out onto the streets and enact what they do in the games on real people.

But New Zeland’s censor has decided that adults should be free to choose to play the game and not be denied that choice just because this pressure group dissaproves of it.

Protecting kids online means more censorship for Beyer

Of course. Because Beyer as usual believes that the soul way of
protecting children from unsuitable material is to slap more
restrictions on what adults can and cannot view.

From Mediawatch UK:

GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES NEW UK COUNCIL FOR CHILD INTERNET SAFETY
FAMILIES AT THE FOREFRONT OF MAKING THE INTERNET SAFER

Some of the biggest names from industry and charities have joined
forces with the Government, parents and young people to help keep
children safe online, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls and Home
Secretary Jacqui Smith announced today. The new UK Council for Child
Internet Safety (UKCCIS) will unite over 100 organisations from the
public and private sector working with Government to deliver
recommendations from Dr Tanya Byron’s report `Safer Children in a
Digital World’.

Reporting directly to the Prime Minister, the Council will help to
improve the regulation and education around internet use, tackling
problems around online bullying, safer search features, and violent
video games. This unprecedented coalition of experts and
organisations will ensure that parents and young people have a voice
in the development of a Child Internet Safety Strategy, to be
delivered early next year.
DCSF News release 29 September 2008

Speaking today John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk said: “We very
much welcome the new Council and wish it every success in its
endeavours. Many parents are very worried and concerned about the
offensive and harmful material so easily accessible on the Internet.
We hope that the Council will provide a much needed forum where these
issues can be raised and properly considered. The highest priority
for the Council is the protection of children and the Prime Minister
was right to set it up. We hope that other countries will follow the
example we have set in the UK and we hope it will lead directly to an
International Treaty on content that will effectively require the
plethora of pornographic and violent imagery currently available to
be taken down and the stopping of new offensive and harmful imagery
being uploaded.”

“We hope it will lead directly to an International Treaty on content
that will effectively require the plethora of pornographic and
violent imagery currently available to be taken down and the stopping
of new offensive and harmful imagery being uploaded.”

So as usual this does not go far enough for Beyer. He wants an all
powerful “International Treaty” that will ban and remove all porn
from the internet.
As we all know nothing will satisfy Beyer when it comes to protecting
children other than the government agreeing to ban everything Beyer
and his cohorts dissaprove of.
Those responsible for protecting children online have come up with
all sorts of workable recomendations (such as giving parents more
information as to the content of websites) but no recomendations
other than “BAN THE LOT” will do for Beyer and his chums.

Beyer and Mediawatch UK see “protecting children” as a chance to
impose their views on everyone else.

Russian channel takes off “pornographic, extremist and immoral” cartoons

“Pornographic, extremist and immoral – that’s how Russian prosecutors are describing popular US cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.”

And because they don’t like them they want to stop everyone else in Russia from watching them.
From the Melon Farmers:

Russian TV channel faces closure over the airing of South Park

Based on article from abc.net.au
 
Pornographic, extremist and immoral – that’s how Russian prosecutors are describing popular US cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.

The channel that carries them has been forced to suspend broadcasts of the offending programs pending legal action. On Wednesday (local time), a meeting of a government monitoring agency could take channel 2×2 off the air.

Throngs of teenagers have taken to the streets to demand their favourite cartoons back.

Fans of the cartoons say critics just don’t get the joke and are engaging in Soviet-style moral censorship, while opponents say the cartoons are poisoning the minds of Russia’s young.

Channel 2×2 is also facing a criminal investigation under strict new Russian legislation against extremism for broadcasting the notoriously foul-mouthed South Park.

Judging by a highly critical statement issued by the prosecutor general’s office this month, the prospects for the channel and its cartoons appear bleak in a Russia that commentators say is becoming increasingly conservative: The cartoons broadcast by 2×2 propagandise violence, cruelty, pornography and anti-social behaviour.

The Federal Service for Monitoring in the Sphere of Connections and Mass Communications is set to meet on Wednesday (local time) to discuss whether or not to renew the channel’s licence, which runs out on October 17.
“Throngs of teenagers have taken to the streets to demand their favourite cartoons back.”

Good on them. Why should they be prevented from viewing their favourite shows because a bunch of self righteous puritans don’t want them watching them?

“Fans of the cartoons say critics just don’t get the joke and are engaging in Soviet-style moral censorship.”

That’s excactly what is happening here.

Russian fans of South Park and co should demand to know why they should be banned from watching these programmes just because prosecutors have decided they are immoral.

Beyer silent as Eastenders peado plot draws 200 complaints

Usually Beyer is amongst the first to rush to have his say when
viewers complain about something in a high profile TV soap opera.
After all he cannot miss out on all that free publicity and a chance
to push Mediawatch UK as the true champion of the down trodden middle
England TV viewer. Yet his voice has yet to be heard over the 200
complaints Eastenders has received over scenes where a peadeophile is
sexually grooming a teengaer.

Here’s the story from the Daily Mail:

Scores of complaints as EastEnders shows scenes of a paedophile
grooming a teenager

By Paul Revoir

Scenes of a paedophile preying on a teenager in pre-watershed soap
EastEnders has led to scores of complaints.

Viewers have hit out at what has been dubbed the most controversial
story-line on the show ever, featuring a pervert’s relationship with
a 15-year-old girl.

On Friday viewers of the show were introduced to new character Tony,
boyfriend of Bianca, who has just been released from prison.

Controversial storyline: The character of Tony King, left, will abuse
his stepdaughter Whitney Dean in a new EastEnders plot

But his character, played by Chris Coghill, is shown have a romantic
relationship with schoolgirl Whitney, who is the step-daughter of
Bianca.

Tony has been shown kissing the girl passionately after sneaking into
her bedroom while his girlfriend was in the bath on Friday night’s
episode.

More…
Now EastEnders tackles paedophilia with horrifying child
abuse ‘grooming’ plotline

The pair were then seen falling to the bed, implying that the couple
were engaged in a sexual relationship.

The programme depicts the girl’s character as a willing participant
in the romance, something which has also upset some viewers.

Part of the family: The character of Bianca Jackson is seen
introducing Tony King to Pat Evans

On Monday’s episode the character was back in the girl’s bedroom,
telling her “You look just like that same 12 year-old girl I fell in
love with.”

He encouraged her not to wear make up saying she looked ‘incredibly
beautiful without it’.

When the character of Whitney, played by 16-year-old Shona McGarty,
said she felt naked without it – to which he replied: ‘What’s wrong
with that?’

There have already been almost 70 complaints to the BBC and Ofcom and
the storyline has only just been introduced on the long-running soap.

This controversy comes just a month after a knife murder on the
controversial show caused 134 complaints after a dead body was shown.

That saw the death of character Jase Dyer, played by Stephen Lord, as
he was set upon by a criminal gang who stabbed him.

Earlier this year BBC bosses revealed EastEnders was the most
controversial show on the BBC last year, attracting 5,500 complaints
from viewers.

That was more than double the number provoked by any other programme.

Viewers expressed their anger about the latest antics on the show on
the BBC’s message boards.

One said: ‘I am totally disturbed by tonight’s episode…I can barely
talk. The storyline with Whitney & Tony is terrible. I am aware this
type of abuse is going on in some homes but is this really the only
way to get the message across.

‘It is appalling that my daughters watch this just before bed. This
is a family show and I think I should be able to choose how I
approach/inform my children about abuse. Not via EastEnders.’

Another added: ‘I too find this quite distasteful for a programme
scheduled in the early evening…I watch soaps for enjoyment, not for
public service messages.

‘This is not enjoyable and I think has now gone too far.’

The BBC said the episodes had been incredibly carefully thought
through and that the broadcaster had worked with the NSPCC on the
storyline.

Copies of the script were said to have been sent to the charity, who
returned them with detailed comments.

The controversy over this and last month’s row is the latest in a
long-line of recent complaints about episodes of the soap.

Media regulator Ofcom censured the BBC in June this year for
EastEnders scenes in which a character was drugged and buried alive.

The regulator had received 116 complaints from viewers who said the
scenes featuring character Max Branning were ‘unsuitable’ for the
time when they were aired.

In February the BBC1 soap was once again found to have breached TV
regulations after showing a gang attack on the Queen Vic pub.

The episode also showed a pregnant woman going into premature labour
after being knocked over during a fight.

Today a BBC spokesman said: ‘This is a difficult and challenging
storyline, but one which keeps with the tradition of the show for
tackling difficult social issues such as domestic abuse and mental
health in the past.’

He added: ‘All the content on screen adheres to the BBC’s editorial
guidelines.’

At the weekend the BBC’s drama chief Jane Tranter defended the
storyline as a ‘fantastically good idea’.

She said: ‘The big moments in EastEnders, those iconic pieces of
television history, tend to be things that are incredibly near the
knuckle, and are actually quite difficult subjects to raise in the
context of a family sitting room.’

The outrage from the Daily Mail, Mediawatch UK, Beyer and most of
Tory voting middle England has been non existant.
Usually they are the loudest voicies screaming about prime time TV
soap operas exposing “our children” to sex and “filth”.
However it’s likely that the storyline panders to their fears.

The tabloid press have been mostly approving of this storyline which
is unsurprising given that it helps them push their “PEADOES ARE
EVERYWHERE AND ARE PREYING ON YOUR KIDS RIGHT NOW!” panic which helps
them sell newspapers.

It seems middle England are quite happy for children to be seeing
inappropriate stuff when it suits their agenda.

Saudi cleric calls for executions for “immoral” TV

Lol! Beyer and co are missing a trick!

From the Melon Farmers:

A Blood Lust for Censorship…
 
Saudi cleric calls for executions to end ‘immoral’ TV
Thanks to Nick
Based on article from reuters.com
 
 
The head of Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Sharia courts has said owners of Arabic television stations airing immodest shows in Ramadan could face execution.

Sheikh Saleh al-Lohaidan, one of the most powerful clerics was responding to a question on a radio phone-in program about the owners of TV stations airing programs that offend modesty, especially during the holy month of Ramadan.

If the evil of those who promote corruption in belief and actions cannot be held back through lesser punishments, then they can be put to death through the judicial process, Lohaidan, head of the Supreme Judicial Council said.

He appeared to be referring to Turkish soap operas that became hugely popular in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries this year, provoking a storm of anger among conservatives in Saudi Arabia who fear the spread of secular culture.

They gained huge popularity partly because they were dubbed into colloquial Arabic and focused on a Muslim country whose culture many Arabs can relate to. The characters would fast in Ramadan but also drink wine.

The government’s official advisor on religious affairs, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al al-Sheikh, said in July it was not Islamically permissible to watch the Turkish serials.

The shows, Nour and Lost Years, were aired by MBC based in the United Arab Emirates.

 

How about it Beyer? At Christmas make a call to the Daily Mail demanding any TV executives putting on “filth” should face beheading.

Or maybe move to Saudi Arabia!

Lol!

Middle England round of Channel 4 for pre 9pm “obscene” sex ed show

“Ofcom flooded with complaints”. Apparently it was 40 people who complained.

Ofcom flooded with complaints over Channel 4’s ‘obscene’ sex education show BEFORE the watershed

By Paul Revoir

Presenter Anna Richardson had tantric sex tuition during the programme

Channel 4 has been accused of peddling obscenity after showing explicit sexual material before the 9pm watershed.

Scores of viewers complained after the Sex Education Show, which began at 8pm on Tuesday, saw school pupils asked to discuss pornography and inspect graphic images of genitalia.

The media regulator Ofcom confirmed that it would investigate the programme, in which teenagers were seen describing depraved sex acts they had seen on the internet, before shocked parents were shown the vile footage from the web.

Other parts of the hour-long show, aired on Tuesday and the first in a series, saw a men’s football team drop their shorts before repairing to the lavatories where they were said to have measured the size of their sexual organs.

In the programme a group of boys were shown close-up images of penises and asked which they thought was the average size.

A male model’s genitals were also shown in close up as a female doctor described in depth the anatomy of the penis.

There were also intimate waxings and a group of schoolgirls looking at pictures of different size breasts.

Presenter Anna Richardson was seen attending a Tantric sex tuition session before she tried it out on her partner.

Parents in the programme being shown explicit internet images looked visibly shocked, with one woman looking as if she was about to vomit.

The children who took part in the programme, who attend an unnamed state school, were aged between 15 and 16. Their parents had given full consent for them to take part.

Shocked viewers said Channel 4 was guilty of broadcasting indecency into family homes.

They claimed it had broken the rules aimed at protecting youngsters from inappropriate material and said they were baffled it showed the programme so early in the evening.

Teenage boys view explicit images during the programme which began at 8pm. Ofcom has said it will investigate the Sex Education Show

Others accused the broadcaster of once again employing tawdry tactics to gain viewers.

The show had a peak audience of 3.3million, which the broadcaster heralded as a success.

The six-part series is also due to cover abortion, homosexuality and pregnancy in the coming weeks.

Enlarge  

 

 

One viewer contacting a TV message board said Channel 4 was ‘reaching new lows’ and added: ‘This was nothing short of legalised porn.’

John Beyer, director of the TV pressure group Mediawatch UK said he had received a number of complaints about the programme. He claimed that in his opinion what had been broadcast was ‘obscene’.

Beyer said: ‘People are absolutely appalled and astonished something like that was put on by Channel 4 at 8pm.

‘I find it extraordinary that they could put this on at that time.

‘It is so early and it seems to me that Ofcom has got to answer how this is not in breach of the statutory requirement to protect under-18s.’

Conservative MP David Davies added: ‘This doesn’t so much seem a sex education programme as an excuse to shock people with controversy in order to boost ratings.’

He added: ‘Some people derive sexual satisfaction in the most bizarre manner.

‘But do we really need to have these things graphically discussed by schoolchildren at 8pm in the evening when we are having our tea?’

 

Yes Yes. Not excactly the most suitable thing to show before the 9pm watershed.

But it’s just another excuse for the Daily Mail, John Beyer, Mediawatch UK and a few Tory politicians to have yet go at Channel 4 for destroying the morals of the youth of the nation.

Beyer and Mediawatch will no doubt use this as

Russian Christians seek South Park ban

Russian prosecutors are acting on the whim of a bunch of Christians to ban South Park because they don’t like it.

From the Scotsman courtesy of Mediawatchwatch:

Russia seeks to ban ‘extreme’ South Park

By Margaret Neighbour
in Moscow

PROSECUTORS in Russia want to ban the satirical cartoon South Park, calling it “extremist” after viewers complained.

The Russian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith said yesterday it had asked prosecutors to ban the show, adding that 20 experts had studied its effect on young viewers.

South Park, about a group of nine-year-olds, courted controversy fromADVERTISEMENT its 1997 debut, parodying celebrities, politicians, religion, gay marriage and Saddam Hussein.

Valentina Titova, of Basmanny prosecutors’ office, said investigators filed a motion after deciding an episode broadcast on the Moscow television station 2×2 “bore signs of extremist activity.”

South Park is dubbed into Russian and broadcast on local networks, including 2×2.

Konstantin Bendas, leader of the Christian group, said: “Young children should not be able to turn on the TV after school and watch this. It insults the feelings of religious believers and incites religious and national hatred.”

The broadcast in question was an episode called Mr Hankey’s Christmas Classics, featuring the cast singing carols.

Russia passed a law in 2006 widening the definition of extremism to include “inciting religious and national hatred”.
“It insults the feelings of religious believers and incites religious and national hatred.”

It may well insults the feelings of religious believes but religious belivers don’t have to watch it do they? Because something insults someone’s religious feelings is no reason to ban it.

Incites religious and national hatred….where is the evidence that South Park insights religious and national hatred in Russia. This is something that this Christian group has decided South Park is guilty of. But if there is no evidence of this than there is no reason to ban it.

Russian fans of South Park should ask prosecutors not to stop them from watching it just because this group of Christians don’t like it.

Charity blasts Billie Piper for Secret Diary Of A Call Girl

The Poppy Project obviously believes they have a right to veto what
parts young actresses should and should not play.

From the Daily Star courtesy of Melon Farmers:

BILLIE BLASTED FOR CALL GIRL TV SHOW

BILLIE Piper’s TV portrayal of a happy hooker has been branded
obscene by a charity that rescues young women forced into
prostitution.

The POPPY Project singled out Billie, star of ITV2’s Secret Diary Of
A Call Girl, for fierce criticism.

Chief executive Denise Marshall said: “She is an actress who has
certain choices. She is not a jobbing actress.

“She appeared in Doctor Who, a programme watched by lots of young
people. To then go and give endorsement to a programme like Secret
Diary is obscene.”

The charity has published a report highlighting the misery
experienced by women involved in the sex industry.

The Big Brothel Report used male volunteers to investigate sex
services advertised in the personal columns of newspapers in 33
London boroughs.

They found more than three-quarters of the women working in the
brothels were victims of sex traffickers.

Two Romanian girls, both aged 16, thought they were coming to Britain
to work as waitresses. Others thought they would be dancing in clubs.

Many only realised something was wrong when the traffickers raped
them and took away their passports.

nIn the TV drama, which returns to ITV2 on Friday, Piper’s character
provides sex services in swanky surroundings with handsome men.

Denise added: “For this privileged young woman to misrepresent the
reality of prostitution is appalling.”

A spokesman for Tiger Aspect Productions which makes the show,
said: “The programme in no way seeks to condone or normalise
prostitution.”

“She is an actress who has certain choices. She is not a jobbing
actress.”

Yeah and she chose to appear in Secret Diary Of A Call Girl. That’s
her choice!

“She appeared in Doctor Who, a programme watched by lots of young
people. To then go and give endorsement to a programme like Secret
Diary is obscene.”

In other words Billie Piper giving endorsement to a programme like
Secret Diary is going to turn young people into prostitutes.

“For this privileged young woman to misrepresent the reality of
prostitution is appalling.”

What the Poppy Project really find appaling is that Billie Piper and
the makers of Secret Diary Of A Call Girl are allowed to put across a
portrayal of prostitution that they disagree with. They would be
happy if the TV regulators ruled that any dramas about prostitution
were only allowed to adhere to the views of groups like the Poppy
Project.

EU ban “sexist” ads

With all the problems going on the world surely there is something far more important the EU could be worrying about than “sexist” adverts.

From the Daily Mail:

Goodbye, boys… Eva Herzigova may have to cover up as the EU pulls the plug on ’sexist’ TV commercials

By Luke Salkeld

They have amused us, angered us and sometimes  -  just occasionally  -they have actually made us buy something.

But now the end could be in sight for adverts which use sex to sell after they came under the unforgiving gaze of Brussels.

And, this being the EU, it is not simply raunchy advertising that is in danger. Any campaigns which are deemed sexist might have to go.

That could mean an end to attractive women advertising perfume, housewives seen in the kitchen and men doing DIY.

The new rules on sexism and inequality in advertising come in a report by the EU’s women’s rights committee which has been adopted by the European Parliament.

It wants anything which promotes women as sex objects or reinforces gender stereotypes to be banned.

Such a move would send shockwaves through the industry.

It would probably prevent images of models  -  male and female  -  in a state of undress, even when they are advertising underwear.

So campaigns similar to 1994’s promotion of the Playtex Wonderbra, which had supermodel Eva Herzigova posing in her underwear under the slogan ‘Hello Boys!’, would never see the light of day.

And last year’s poster showing David Beckham in Armani underwear would not have stood a chance.

Nor would other controversial images, such as the bare-chested builder with a can of Diet Coke in 1996 or the recent adverts for Lynx deodorant which were branded sexist for suggesting it attracts women.

Even famous adverts such as those featuring the Oxo family, with Lynda Bellingham as the housewife, might be deemed sexist.

The EU vote on the report is not legally binding but it could be used by governments to justify the biggest shake-up in the industry for years.

Swedish MEP Eva-Brit Svensson, who introduced the report to the European Parliament, wants governments in each country to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She also called for regulating bodies to monitor adverts and marketing and introduce a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against ’sexist insults or degrading images of women in the media’.

Her report is particularly concerned with ‘extremely thin models’ who are said to be poor role models for girls.

Miss Svensson said: ‘Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes.’

A spokesman for the Advertising Standards Authority said existing codes already barred adverts from being ‘discriminatory or harmful when depicting men or women’.

He added: ‘Although the ASA supports the overall objectives of the report . . . the approach suggested is inflexible and impractical.’
It seems the EU is taking what it interprets as “sexist” and trying to impose that onto the advertising industry.

Sometimes adverts which play on stereotypes and exploit the often humorous diffrences between men and women can be funny. But it’s obvious the EU has zero sense of humour and wants everyone to as miserable and po faced as they are!

ASA: Wanted for crime against free expression

Well said!

From Spiked:

Rob Lyons

Wanted for crimes against free expression

The Advertising Standards Authorities’ censuring of a movie poster
exposes its elite disdain for the dumb masses.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has censured the makers
of an Angelina Jolie action movie, Wanted, because the posters
advertising the film `glamorised guns’. This willingness of our
moral guardians to clamp down on freedom of expression poses a
graver threat to the health of society than any imaginary Angelina-
inspired gun crime spree.

Wanted is a big-screen version of a comic-book story starring Jolie
and James McAvoy. She’s a kick-ass assassin, he’s a bored office
dweeb getting walked all over by everyone. But, as the poster
declares: `SIX WEEKS AGO, I WAS JUST LIKE YOU… AND THEN I MET HER…
AND MY WORLD WAS CHANGED FOREVER.’ It’s your regular `boy meets
girl, girl gives boy a gun and several million dollars, violence and
adventure ensue’ kinda movie.

Angelina Jolie in Wanted poster
The posters captured the film pretty well. `One poster showed the
profile of the actress Angelina Jolie’, notes the ASA. `She was
crouched with her elbow resting on her knee and was holding a gun
pointing upwards. In the background the actor James McAvoy held a
gun in each hand, pointing towards the reader.’ Another poster
showed a variety of images, including one of Jolie `laid across the
bonnet of a car on her back. She was facing the reader and holding a
gun, which pointed in the opposite direction.’

Yet for the ASA, these posters were simply too much. In its ruling
censuring the film’s promoters, the ASA states: `We acknowledged
most viewers would understand the posters reflected the content of
an action film. However, we considered, that because the ads
featured a glamorous actress, action poses, several images of or
related to guns and aspirational text, they could be seen to
glamorise the use of guns and violence. We concluded [the posters]
could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorising the
use of guns.’

Now there’s certainly no doubt that Angelina Jolie is glamorous, and
that the posters and the movie appeal to the desire to be powerful
and to be attractive to hot women like her. One suspects this
combination is especially enticing to the kind of young men who
spend a lot of time in their bedrooms reading comic books and who
might just want to see Wanted. Also, as Adam Curtis pointed out in
his TV series The Century of the Self, the advertising industry was
heavily influenced by Sigmund Freud – and that is well illustrated
in the Wanted poster’s depiction of a sexy Hollywood actress with
a `loaded weapon’ in her hands.

What is repulsive, however, is the assumption, made by the ASA and
held by the kind of people who complain to such busybody
organisations, that we mere mortals cannot distinguish between
action-movie erotica and real life. Whatever makes people carry guns
and commit murder, it is highly unlikely to have anything to do with
what is on at the multiplex or with the poster on display at the bus
stop. British censors have gone from arguing (on the basis of no
evidence) that movies make us violent to claiming that posters for
movies might tip us over the edge. This empowers our moral
superiors, who of course are immune to such violent temptations, to
control imagery not only in the cinema but everywhere in the public
realm.

Worse, the ASA issued its completely unnecessary and censorial
judgement after receiving complaints from just 17 people – thus
facilitating what we at spiked have referred to as `the tyranny of
the minority’. The ASA judgement is entirely subjective. So its
scolding adjudication accepts that most people will understand
perfectly well that this is just a movie and isn’t meant to reflect
real life – and yet, rather than base its decisions on what the vast
majority of sensible people will think, the ASA had acted on a `just
in case’ principle because the posters could be seen to condone
violence.

This tyranny of the minority – or, in truth, tyranny in the name of
a tiny minority – has become common in recent years. In February
2007, House of Fraser pulled a promotional advert from its stores on
the grounds that one person thought it was racist. A year later,
London Underground banned posters for the theatrical comedy Fat
Christ before anyone even had a chance to complain. Many other
examples must never see the light of day, dismissed with pre-emptive
self-censorship by producers and promoters afraid of incurring the
wrath of the ASA, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the British
Board of Film Classification (BBFC) or various other bodies set up
to determine for us what we should be allowed to see and hear.

The ASA ruling against Wanted will only reinforce this trend. Many
commentators and activists in Britain frequently criticise deeply
censorious countries such as China or Iran, where very small groups
of people determine what the mass of the population can read or
watch. Yet in Britain, too, measures are being put in place to allow
the sensitivities of infinitesimal minorities to determine what the
majority can glimpse in the public realm. We should say loud and
clear that such petty censoriousness is not Wanted here.

Rob Lyons is deputy editor of spiked.

“Whatever makes people carry guns and commit murder, it is highly
unlikely to have anything to do with what is on at the multiplex or
with the poster on display at the bus stop.”

Exactly! That’s just what the ASA and the self appointed moral
guardians who winge to them don’t understand.
Gun crime is a complex problem which encompesses all sorts of social
problems and issues and blaming adverts and films is far too
simplistic.

“What is repulsive, however, is the assumption, made by the ASA and
held by the kind of people who complain to such busybody
organisations, that we mere mortals cannot distinguish between
action-movie erotica and real life.”

Couldn’t have put it it better. Such an assumption is held also by
pressure groups like Mediawatch UK who think the public are too
stupid to distinguish between fantasy and reality and will copy what
they see on the screen.