BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A repeat broadcast of Erotica, which dealt with the phenomenon of sex as

entertainment, was screened on TV3 at 11.00pm on 12 February 1996.

Mr Smits complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that because the programme

purported to be entertaining and investigative, when in fact it was simply propaganda, it

breached the standard requiring broadcasters to avoid the use of practices which

undermine viewers' confidence in the integrity of broadcasting. He also complained

that Erotica discriminated against women and children because it promoted

pornography.

TV3 did not respond until the 60th working day after receiving the referral. It explained

that it was reluctant to deal with the complaint because of the threatening tone of the

letters it received from Mr Smits. When it later responded, it rejected the argument that

it was deceptive and undermined viewers' confidence in broadcasting. It also rejected

the argument that women were discriminated against, noting that both genders were

involved in the production of erotic materials. Dissatisfied with that response, Mr Smits

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The repeat broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of the programme Erotica on 12

February 1996 at 11.00pm was the subject of a complaint by Phillip Smits of Auckland.

Mr Smits complained that it was deceptive to describe the programme as investigative

and entertaining because it was simply propaganda which promoted and endorsed

pornography. In his complaint to TV3 he threatened to confront those at TV3 who

authorised the broadcast.

Mr Smits referred his complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989 because he believed that TV3 had not responded within the statutory time

period. When TV3 was advised of its obligation to respond, it did so on the 60th

working day. It explained that its reluctance to respond was because of the abusive tone

of the letters received from Mr Smits.

TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G7 and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first requires broadcasters:

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the

presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence

viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

The other standard reads:

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or

dramatic work.

TV3 pointed out first that the re-broadcast was done in good faith following the

Authority's decision (No: 111/95 dated 26 October 1995) which found that the

programme did not breach broadcasting standards. It noted that the re-broadcast was at

a later hour (11.00pm cf 9.30pm), that it was preceded by a warning and that the

content had been cut. It maintained that the programme was precisely what it claimed to

be – an investigation of the erotic – and therefore did not breach standard G7. To the

complaint that it breached standard G13, TV3 responded that both genders were

involved in the production of erotic movies, books and television, and that nothing in

the programme encouraged the denigration of women. It declined to uphold the

complaint.

The Authority declines to determine the complaint for two reasons. First, it has already

determined a complaint that the broadcast of Erotica breached standards G2 and G6 in

its decision No: 111/95, in which it declined to uphold the complaint. Secondly, it

declines to determine the complaint under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 which

reads:

s.11 The Authority may decline to determine a complaint referred to it

under section 8 of this Act if it considers -

..

b) That, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be

determined by the Authority.

It declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances because of the language in

which the complaint was made, is entirely unacceptable.

For the reasons set forth above the Authority declines to determine the

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
27 June 1996

Appendix

Phillip Smits' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 14 February

1996

Mr Smits of Auckland complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the repeat

broadcast of Erotica on 12 February 1996.

He suggested the programme breached standard G7 because it was a programme which

purported to be entertaining or investigative when in fact it was, in his view, nothing

more than propaganda for pornography. He also maintained that the programme

breached standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice because it

promoted pornography, and argued that so-called mainstream programmes such as

Erotica were just as dangerous as pornography.

Mr Smits' Referral to the Authority - 30 April 1996

On the basis that TV3 had not responded to the complaint within the 60 working day

time limit imposed under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, Mr Smits referred the

complaint to the Authority.

Mr Smits repeated his argument that Erotica breached broadcasting standards. In his

view the programme endorsed and glamorised pornography, and failed to point out that

the porn industry was harmful or dangerous, and that it discriminated against women

and children. He also argued that the programme lacked balance in its coverage of a

controversial matter and that its re-broadcast indicated that the broadcaster had a

malicious intent.

Mr Smits argued that the programme should not have gone to air in the first place, and

claimed that the Authority was remiss in not upholding his first complaint. He blamed

the Authority for not expressing any disquiet about the programme's blatant agenda of

"promotion of porn".

TV3's Response to the Authority - 17 May 1996

TV3 explained that its reluctance to respond to Mr Smits' complaint was because of the

threatening and vexatious tone of his correspondence. It noted that having been advised

that it had a statutory duty to respond it was now doing so. It added that by its

calculations, the 60 working day time limit had expired on 16 May.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 enclosed a copy of its response to Mr Smits.

TV3's Response to the Complaint - 15 May 1996

By way of background, TV3 explained to Mr Smits that Erotica was an entertainment

special on a number of forms of erotica including books, movies, television and CD

Rom. It noted that it was Adults Only entertainment, that the content had been cut, that

it had a warning and that its repeat screening was at 11.00pm.

To the complaint that the programme breached standard G7, TV3 responded that it

never pretended to be something which it was not. It was a programme which

investigated erotica including old-fashioned erotica, such as books and manuscripts,

and modern day material, such as the CD Rom. It maintained that the material shown

was not indecent or in breach of its AO rating.

Responding to the complaint under standard G13, TV3 argued that both genders were

involved in the production of erotic movies, books and television. It maintained that

nothing in the programme suggested that women were inferior and pointed to the

remarks made on the programme by one producer who talked about erotica for women.

TV3 also noted that it re-broadcast the programme in good faith following the

Authority's decision not to uphold an earlier complaint about the programme (Decision

No: 111/95). It pointed out that it would not re-screen any programme or part of a

programme which the Authority had found breached any of the broadcasting standards.

Mr Smits' Referral to the Authority - 18 May 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response to his complaint, Mr Smits referred it to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Smits repeated that the programme was about pornography and maintained that there

were no examples of erotica. He explained the difference between erotica and

pornography, arguing that pornography was the opposite of erotica because it enslaved

and misrepresented women.

Noting that TV3 had admitted that the programme was superficial, Mr Smits also argued

that it was dishonest because, although it purported to be an investigation into erotica as

entertainment, in fact it promoted pornography as entertainment.

Turning to standard G13, Mr Smits argued that the programme was not subject to any

of the exemptions because it was not factual, dramatic, humorous or satirical. Thus, he

claimed, it encouraged discrimination against women and children as well as being

biased and unfair.

Mr Smits was critical of TV3's argument that because women were involved in the

production of erotic material it did not degrade them. He repeated that pornography was

what it was because it presented women and children as sexual commodities. He

maintained that the women who were interviewed on the programme all endorsed

pornography as entertainment because they had a vested interest in doing so. He argued

that the pro-pornography stance taken by women in Erotica did not make pornography

any less degrading of women and children

Discussing male v female pornography, Mr Smits maintained that the reason there were

not 40+ publications objectifying men showing them infantilised, shaved, with their

legs spread, masturbating was because of the patriarchy in society and the use of

pornography as an instrument of oppression of women. He pointed out that there were

no other goods on sale which degraded and defamed people as did pornography.

Rejecting TV3's response he wrote:

Pornography, rape, sexual and physical violence against women - they are all

inextricably intertwined. Don't try and tell me they're not - I'm interested in

the truth, not what TV3 are trying to tell me.

Mr Smits' Final Comment - 27 May 1996

Noting that some of the correspondence had crossed in the mail, Mr Smits sought to

add to his letter of 18 May.

He commented first on TV3's point that his was the only complaint received about the

programme. He asserted that that was irrelevant and suggested TV3 mentioned the fact

to try to demoralise him and to influence the Authority.

To TV3's comment that it re-broadcast the programme in good faith following the

Authority's decision not to uphold it previously, he suggested that TV3 wished to show

its support for the ideology of the programme itself.

Mr Smits suggested that a new category of pornography had arisen and that

programmes such as "Baywatch", "Hard Copy" and "Murder One" were examples

where prostitution, pornography, rape and sexual violence were glamorised and

exploited.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 30 May 1996

TV3 advised that it had no further comments to make regarding the complaint.