LOS ANGELES—The crackdown on porn by the Brits is real. UK regulator Ofcom has levied a fine of over $60,000 against a satellite company for advertising an adult website on its adult channels. The fine of £40,000 was announced after Satellite Entertainment Limited day-long airing of an “onscreen promotion to an adult website,” reported ATV Today.
“The channels Northern Birds, Sportxxx Girls, Essex Babes and Livexxx Babes, situated in the ‘adult’ section of the electronic [program] guide of the Sky digital satellite platform, broadcast an advertisement on channels without mandatory restricted access for a website containing pornographic material and is deemed by the television regulator a serious breach of the their Code,” it continued.
The regulator said it was particularly miffed that the ad was visible during the day, “when children were available to view.”
Results of an investigation “noted that an on screen text graphic, and logo, for the bluebird.tv website was broadcast throughout the day across the network of porn channels above the company’s chat service phone number. The website contained material free to access which was suitable for over 18s only.”
However, a thorough look at the actual website, which is owned and operated by The Webstream Company BV, reveals no sexual activity of any sort, and only a few topless shots of cam girls whose live shows must be purchased to be seen. In other words, the website is no more sexually gratuitous, and probably less so, than your average British tabloid available for sale to the general public.
The section of the advertising code that was used to levy the fine was Rule 30.3:
Advertisements for products coming within the recognized character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only.
It is apparently the case that even on adult satellite channels in the UK, ads promoting adult sites must be further hidden behind another firewall even if the site being advertised does not contain actual pornography. Disturbingly, therefore, Ofcom, whose authority extends to all telecommunications and digital mediums, obviously defines pornography as broadly as possible, sweeping in mere topless nudity as worthy of a significant fine, even if the ad itself that is the cause of the fine contains no nudity.
The simple fact that knowledge of a site’s existence is disseminated is obviously reason enough for a broadcaster to be fined, and indicates that the British government is singling out adult websites for retribution even if they contain the same content proffered by media companies known to be chummy with the UK government.
