Mediawatch-UK

Thursday, 13 March 2014

The wit and wisdom of Mary Whitehouse




Many members have been in touch about our Mary Whitehouse quote project which we are running during this, our anniversary year.

It’s ironic that much of what we know about her views has come to us filtered by the media itself so, since 1st January we have been tweeting a quote from her writing every other day.  We have also updated a dedicated Facebook page and website.

It’s been fascinating to hear Mary in her own words and I thought that, if you’ve not been following the initiative, you would be interested to see some of the material posted so far.

  • “If society accepts the free distribution and display of pornography then inevitably it will fall into the hands of children.” 1967
  • “We have created a candy-floss society in which the young can find little of hard substance on which to cut teeth of conviction.” 1967
  •  “The creative growth of a society, and its stability, depend on the willingness of the individual to accept responsibility for his behaviour.” 1971
  •  “The new libertarians are, in fact, the new tyrants.  They launch an assault upon the senses and freedom of the individual which is the essence of the worst kind of dictatorship.” 1971
  •  “A simple choice: between genuine freedom and total licence, between cultural responsibility and cultural anarchy.” 1982
  •  “No other age has exploited violent crime, as ours does, by constantly exploiting it as entertainment.” 1985
  •  “Because it is such a powerful and all-pervasive medium, TV is bound to play a key role in creating the quality of life we all experience.” 1985
  •  “We trivialise the argument about what is and what is not acceptable in public and private attitudes and behaviour if we reduce the issue to personal taste.” 1993
  •  “Broadcasters should not take their decisions in a social vacuum.” 1993
  •  “Today our society ruthlessly exploits the minds and emotions of young people for financial and political capital.” 1993
  •  “We shall raise a generation which either grasps at sex as a physical lust or treats it simply as a passing fancy, no more.” 1993

If you are a Facebook user please like the page and invite your contacts to like it too and if you are a tweeter please re-tweet us.  We hope to get as many people engaged and following this as possible.  This initiative will continue throughout 2014 and we plan to use it as a basis for a major media initiative later in the year.  

Website: www.marywhitehouse.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/mrsmarywhitehouse
Twitter: www.twitter.com/MrsMWhitehouse @mrsmwhitehouse

If you have not already done so please do consider contacting your MP about the Pornification of a Generation Conference which is taking place in Parliament.  You can do this simply and easily using our campaign website www.safeonline.org.uk.  Thank you to all those who have already taken the time to do this; as a result of your emails several MPs have been in touch for further details having overlooked their invitations first time around.

Friday, 7 March 2014

The Pornification of a Generation




Those under 30 make up almost one fifth of the population yet, despite their childhood and teenage years being only recently behind them, their voices are often unheard in debates about pornography and our culture.

These young people have a unique insight into the challenges presented by a society in which technology enables everyone to be fully connected, but also makes the most extreme material imaginable instantly available at their fingertips.

We are delighted to be working with a number of like minded organisations to give this under-represented group a voice.  Together we have organised a unique event to take place in Parliament on 7th April which will connect young people with legislators and other opinion formers to discuss the impact of pornography on their generation.

The Pornification of a Generation – the Under 30s Perspective will be chaired by Rachel Gardener, the President of the Girl’s Brigade and all the speakers will be under 30, with the youngest being just 17.  They will share their experiences, concerns and insights on the reality of growing up exposed to, arguably, more explicit imagery than any previous generation in history.

The speakers come from all walks of life and include a psychotherapist, an educator and youth worker who will be giving their professional views and we also have some very brave individuals talking about how they became addicted to pornography and the effect it has had on them.

Not only will this be a chance for politicians to hear authentic voices from the sharp end, we also aim to empower a rising generation to continue the fight.

All 650 MPs have been invited to attend and we hope that they will take up this unique opportunity.  If you think your MP should be there please contact them and encourage them to attend using our campaign website Safeonline.org.uk which has been updated for this event.

Friday, 28 February 2014

Fighting for the future



 

This week has seen much media coverage of the news that three senior Labour politicians held leading positions in a human rights group that backed the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

PIE was formed in 1974 and campaigned for "children's sexuality". It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent and it offered support to adults "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners". The real aim was to normalise sex with children.   Many of this week’s revelations are not new but they do reflect the shock that we feel about how a group with "paedophile" in its name could operate so openly for a decade.

Columnist Matthew Parris said “if there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net”

At the time there was a battle raging over free speech and PIE were able to take advantage of this.  Journalist Polly Toynbee wrote of her "sinking feeling that in another five years or so, their aims would eventually be incorporated into the general liberal credo, and we would all find them acceptable".

Fortunately there were those who were willing to fight for the rights of children including The National Viewers and Listeners Association (as Mediawatch-UK was then known).  Charles Oxley, Vice President of NVALA, successfully infiltrated PIE and was able to provide police with a dossier on the group and its membership which played a crucial part in the police prosecution of its members and the disbanding of the group.

NVALA drafted proposed new legislation to make membership of any organisation which supported, encouraged, condoned or enticed adults to have sexual relationships with children illegal and to make the production and distribution of material advocating such relationships against the law.  In her book Mightier Than The Sword Mary Whitehouse wrote about standing outside the committee room in which the ballot for Private Members Bills took place to make sure successful MPs were given sight of the draft legislation and urged to take it forward.

Mary Whitehouse wrote: “As I see it there is a choice of freedoms here: either the freedom of vicious perverts to propagate their perversions or the freedom of children.”

Reading these words in 2014 it is impossible not draw parallels with our fight to protect children online today.  The ‘adult industry’ launched the Free Speech Coalition with the aim of “greater public tolerance of freedom of sexual speech” and it currently engages in lobbying, PR and litigation with to this end.  We have this group to thank for legislation in the US which removed the prohibition on depictions that appeared to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and opened the door to a tsunami of material known as ‘barely legal’ which features computer generated images of children or performers over the age of 18 childified to look much younger

Protecting children from pornography is much more than a free speech issue.  As more and more emerged about the effects of pornography on those who consume it is an issue of public health and we must ensure that we do not allow this fact to be clouded.

Writing in The Times the year before PIE was disbanded philosopher Roger Scruton stated his view that freedom of speech had to be sacrificed when it came to such groups. He wrote: "Paedophiles must be prevented from 'coming out'. Every attempt to display their vice as a legitimate 'alternative' to conventional morality must be, not refuted, but silenced."

It is to be hoped that we will be able to look back on our present campaigns from the future and wonder how we, as a society, ever accepted the universal availability of online pornography without protection and be thankful that the work which are undertaking today has strengthened future generations.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Playing it safe




Much has been written about the merits or otherwise of playing video games – particularly those of a violent nature.  Critics’ claim that games are addictive and can foster an obsession with killing and death whilst supporters argue that they improve visual, coordination and reasoning skills and can provide a safe outlet for aggression.

Some new research from Canada has recently been published which considers the link between the types of video games teens play, how long they play them, and their levels of moral reasoning; their ability to take the perspective of others into account.

Researchers surveyed 13 and 14 year olds of both genders; they were questioned about their gaming habits and patterns and were assessed to gauge their stage of moral development using an established scale.

Previous studies have suggested that a person's moral judgement goes through four phases as they grow from childhood and enter adulthood.  By the age of 13 or 14 young people should be entering the third stage, and be able to empathise with others and take their perspective into account.

However this latest study found that this stage appeared to be delayed in teenagers who regularly played violent video games.  Hours spent playing violent games was effectively stunting teenagers’ emotional growth.  Interestingly, there was no correlation between the amount of time adolescents reported playing non-violent video games and their moral reasoning levels.

Researcher Mirjana Bajovic said: 'Exposure to violence in video games may influence the development of moral reasoning because violence is not only presented as acceptable but is also justified and rewarded.  Spending too much time within the virtual world of violence may prevent [gamers] from getting involved in different positive social experiences in real life, and in developing a positive sense of what is right and wrong.'

Debates on violent video games often get stuck at ‘do they cause violent crime?’ but as this study shows, there are other more subtle outcomes which are also of concern.

Friday, 31 January 2014

Narrow defeat in the Lords: The Fight goes on




Thank you for taking the time last weekend to use our campaign website, Safeonline.org.uk to contact a peer and encourage them to support Baroness Howe’s amendment to the government’s Children and Families Bill.  Lady Howe’s amendment required all ISPs and mobile phone operators to provide their customers a service free of adult content unless they opted in to receive it and made provision for robust age verification to guard against abuse of the system.

So many of you responded that we estimate every peer received at least one email of encouragement.

Sadly the amendment was not carried with 118 peers voting for it with 153 voting against.

We always knew that an early vote would be crucial to the success of the amendment and unfortunately this was scuppered by two last minute developments.  Firstly, the Commons decided to send the Lobbying Bill back to the Lords, which lost a good hour and a half and secondly there was much debate on an extremely controversial sex education amendment which took a long time to debate.

In the event Lady Howe did not start speaking until 7.39 pm and the result of the vote came out one hour later.

A number of peers who know about these things tell me that, had the vote been earlier, the amendment would have been carried comfortably.  It is deeply frustrating that, at the end of the day this should come down to something as capricious as timing rather than the quality of arguments.

Although disappointing I feel that we should also take encouragement from the result.  In her summing up Lady Howe said:

“We have debated these issues on many occasions and need to come to some resolution. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.”

The closeness of the vote indeed shows the opinion of the House.  The peers who voted for the amendment included Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and cross-benchers.  Clearly this is an issue which transcends party boundaries and shows the strength of feeling on this issue.  The government will have noted this and are likely to be watching very closely.  As one expert told me this week ‘it would only take another Tesco [which Mediawatch-UK recently discovered was not filtering content on their mobile service despite tacit assurances it was] and they would have to legislate’.

Thank you once again for your support which, had timings been different, would have carried the day.  All is not yet over and I look forward to being able to write to you with the good news of statutory protection in the not too distant future.

Friday, 24 January 2014

Have your say: a real chance to see real change


Last year the Government announced that it had worked with Internet Service Providers to come up with a voluntary industry agreement to protect children online.  It was a great step forward but it can only be really effective if accompanied by robust age-verification for users which is sadly lacking from the industry’s own proposals. 

If we rely solely on a self-regulation we will have no long term security.  It may be that under intense political and media pressure today the industry will get its house in order, but where will we be in five, ten or twenty years’ time?  If it is true, as the Prime Minister has said, that ‘few things are more important than this,’ why is it that we have laws on myriad eventualities but nothing in relation to one of the most important areas currently affecting us and our children?

We believe that self-regulation is not a long term solution and that statutory backing is needed.  As you know, we have been supporting Baroness Howe’s Online Safety Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Lords at the end of last year.  The Bill, should it become law, would provide the statutory underpinning presently lacking.

However, Baroness Howe’s Bill is a private members bill and, although it received the overwhelming support of all the peers that attended its second reading, the passage of such bills is notoriously precarious unless they are allocated government time.

We are delighted to report that yesterday Baroness Howe put forward an amendment to the government’s Children and Families Bill with very similar clauses to her original Bill.  This is a wonderful opportunity to future-proof online child protection moving forward.

The Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on Tuesday 28th January.  We understand that the Labour Party will be supporting the amendment and, if the cross bench peers also supported it, there is a very good chance that it could become law.

If you agree that its time the law was used to protect children in the online environment as it is offline please email a cross bench peer and encourage them to attend The House on 28th January and support the Bill.

We have updated our campaign website, www.safeonline.org.uk, to enable you to do this quickly and easily. 

Time is of the essence but this is such a wonderful opportunity to have a real influence we hope you won’t want to miss it.

Friday, 17 January 2014

Fit for purpose?




This week I have spent quite a bit of time fielding calls from journalists; most of them want to talk about two news stories which broke this week.

The first is news that the British Board of Film Classification has announced that, following public consultation, they will be making changes to their classification guidelines.  The positive changes include a tightening up of the language permitted in U certificate films. Greater weight will be given to the impact of tone and atmosphere in films issued with parental guidance (PG) and suitable for 12-year-olds and over (12A) certificates.  That is, regulators will take into account the impact of what the viewer thinks they have seen as well as what they have actually seen.

After asking the public, the BBFC decided that there will be more flexibility for strong language in films given a 15 certificate.  The BBFC’s accompanying report stated that there had been a softening of attitudes toward the most offensive words “especially among younger respondents” which begs the question has offensive language been normalised because it has become so ubiquitous?  The report stated that “by aged 15, most parents argued that it was ‘game over’ and they could no longer control their child’s viewing. Film classification was fairly low on the list of things to worry about regarding their child”.  How very sad!  With childhood being assaulted on so many fronts it is hard to protect young adults but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

The report also revealed that sexualised content in some music videos and ease of accessibility to online pornography was also a public worry.  How extraordinary then that this report should be released on the very day that such content made its way to the small screen.

The second story which many journalists have called me about this week is what took place in the Celebrity Big Brother house on Sunday evening.  Although always provocative this series has been particularly notable for graphic sexual content and on Sunday it reached a new low. 

The contestants were set the task of producing an 18 rated broadcast.  Housemates were provided with latex outfits and props reminiscent of a pornographic film and plied with alcohol to remove any inhibitions.  What ensued, in the words of one of the housemates, was ‘crudity and filth’.

The broadcast included simulated sexual acts and pole dancing with overtones of prostitution.  It is worth noting that in our society pole dancing is confined to licensed establishments operating adult only viewing, something which cannot be said to apply to Channel 5 at 9pm on a Sunday evening.  The end result was footage with the tone and spirit of a pornographic film.

We have written to Ofcom and asked them to investigate, setting out why we believe this programme to be in breach of the Broadcasting Code.  We have pointed out that extra care should have be taken because its 9pm slot, coupled with the large amount publicity it receives, makes it very likely to be viewed by a young audience.

We are also concerned that this extreme sexual material is easily available to children via Channel 5’s on-demand service.  These broadcasts have attracted much media attention and it likely that children’s interest will be piqued as a result.  All that stands between them and such content is a tick box confirming that the viewer is over 16.  This is not enough protection and, although a parental control service is available, to our knowledge it has never been advertised on screen so parents are only likely to know about it if they have accessed such a programme themselves.  This means that in practice this broadcast is easily accessible to the majority of children.

We have also written to the on-demand regulator, ATVOD, and asked them what can be done to protect children from such material.  ATVOD have done some great work in targeting websites offering pornographic content without robust age verification and although in the past they have not considered the sites of broadcasters to be hosting material which might ‘seriously mentally, physically or morally’ harm a child broadcasts like this show that this is an argument which is wearing pretty thin.  

If you would like to have your say about this (or any other) broadcast you can do this via the regulators’ website Parentport.  So far Ofcom have received nearly 400 complaints about Celebrity Big Brother and I’m hoping that they will investigate and deal with the programme accordingly.   

Let 2014 be the year in which Ofcom finally shows its teeth.

Vivienne Pattison
Director