BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Two episodes of Playboy's Secret Confessions and a Video Centrefold programme

were broadcast on Sky Network Television Ltd between 1.00am and 2.30am on 20

August 1994.

Mr Smits complained to Sky Network Television Ltd that parts of the material

breached the standard requiring good taste and decency and parts discriminated against

women. He described the programmes as insidious, pernicious propaganda which was

an instrument of oppression against women.

In its response, Sky maintained that the complaint was not justified on either ground.

It considered that the items were not significantly different from those which were

regularly screened in that time slot and, having regard to all contextual matters, it did

not agree they contained material which breached the standard requiring good taste and

decency. Describing the programmes as light hearted and with fantasy elements, Sky

did not believe they would have discriminated against women and declined to uphold

this aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with Sky's decision, 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 declined to determine the complaint in all

the circumstances.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the programmes complained

about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).

In a previous decision (Decision No: 62/94) about Playboy programmes on Sky

Television, the Authority signalled that it intended to seek public views about R-rated

adult entertainment featuring the display of female nudity and simulated sexual

activity on pay television when it wrote:

[The minority] noted that the Authority may commission public opinion

research to guide it on what the public thinks about soft porn on pay

television.

The majority also acknowledged that it had difficulty in making its decision

without research to guide it and agreed that it would be a high priority for it

to commission research which would enable it to gauge decisively public

opinion on this issue.

The Authority now advises that it has begun a major review of the Code of

Broadcasting Practice for Pay Television, with particular reference to adult

entertainment. This will include a review of the literature on the topic, public opinion

research and an examination of practices in other countries, particularly the United

Kingdom, Canada and Australia where the matter has been considered recently. The

Authority is committed to moving as quickly as possible in conducting the review and

is seeking the cooperation of the industry in this respect.

Because the results of the review will not be known immediately, the Authority has

decided in all the circumstances to decline to determine the complaint under s.11(b) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

.

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

complaint in all the circumstances.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
6 March 1995

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 27 August 1994

Mr Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Sky Network Television Ltd that three

programmes broadcast between 1.00am and 2.30am on 20 August 1994 were in breach

of the Sky Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He complained that parts of the

programmes were in breach of currently accepted norms of decency and taste and

parts discriminated against women.

With respect to the first item, entitled Playboy's Secret Confessions, Mr Smits noted

that it contained a disclaimer at the end which stated that it was not a bona fide Ôsexual

advice' programme but was only for entertainment. Therefore, he argued, the explicit

exposure of female sexual areas contained in the item was in breach because the women

were objectified for the purpose of entertaining men. Further, he claimed that the

story was absurd and without integrity and the description of sexual activity using

euphemisms was objectionable. Mr Smits noted that the next segment also contained

a fantasy element and argued that it too was only a vehicle to expose various body

parts of the playboy models.

Turning to the Video Centrefold sequence on Pamela Anderson, Mr Smits wrote:

The next sequence is a straightforward pornographic presentation of this

woman's body - for consumption, for judgement, for approval etc by

Playboy's consumers.

...

As usual, Playboy get their product to endorse and praise them (Playboy) for

what they do which is to sexualise women and turn them into pornographic

images. They "reproduce" the magazine spread - by moving a camera over

various static pictures, including some semi-explicit shots of her genital area (in

breach, opinion). Following is a sequence involving an anonymous man who is

her lover. She is naked, he is not. She is objectified separately in the same

sequence - she fondles herself, supposedly fantasising about him - a vehicle to

show her breasts, pubic hair (etc) - filmed voyeuristically, sneakily, furtively,

secretly ... .

During the sequences, Mr Smits continued, the woman spoke of her dreams and

aspirations, praising Playboy for giving her opportunities. In his view, this was part

of the subordination and conspiracy, and he argued that though Playboy would say it

had empowered her, in his view, it had enslaved her. He repeated that most of the

footage was clearly in breach of currently accepted norms of decency and taste

specifically because the footage was pornographic.

Turning to the next item, another Video Centrefold which also featured a playmate

profile, Mr Smits wrote that he was particularly concerned about the portrayal of her

with grease marks on her body as if she had been fondled by someone with greasy

hands. He argued that the techniques employed - the child-like voiceover, the

sequence in lingerie, the shots from behind, a shot with connotations of bondage, and

shots that focused on her genital area and breasts while avoiding her face and the

filming from above so that she was looked down on - were all pornographic.

He also objected to what he described as the Playboy propaganda being recited by its

"victims".

The final item, titled Playboy's Secret Confessions was, according to Mr Smits, a

vehicle to expose two models dancing in lingerie for the sexual arousal of men. He

asked:

So what's all this for??? Who is it for??? What are they doing with it??? I

will tell you - men are taping it and masturbating to it...You can tell me it's

harmless, non-violent erotica. I tell you its insidious, pernicious propaganda -

an instrument of oppression (of women). Playboy's vicious lie... .

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 October 1994

Sky responded that it did not find the complaints about the three items were justified.

It explained that it reviewed every movie before screening and eliminated any which

breached good taste or encouraged discrimination. Referring to the Authority's

Decision No: 62/94, Sky noted that this can be a difficult process and lead to differing

personal opinions. It described Mr Smits' views as extreme.

It explained that as a subscription service it had a different code of practice which

takes into account the fact that there was a direct relationship between the subscriber

and Sky and that subscribers were aware of the general nature of the programmes to be

screened and were able to exercise control. With respect to the programming of Adult

movies, it noted that each movie was reviewed first and, since the BSA's decision, it

had moved the start time from 10.30pm to 11.30pm and later. The movies which

were the subject of this complaint started at 1.00am, which clearly signalled that they

were outside of mainstream programming. Further, it noted that customers were given

the option to block the programme out completely, adding that it was taking steps to

increase subscriber awareness of the facility.

With respect to the complaint that the items discriminated against women, it argued

that since they were light-hearted and fanciful and presented in most cases as fantasy,

it was unlikely that they encouraged discriminatory attitudes.

Mr Smits' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16 October

1994

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, Mr Smits referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Mr Smits argued that Sky's reasoning was flawed and that it could not justify the

screening of the material by stating that it was broadcast late and that viewers had the

ability to restrict access to the programmes. He objected to Sky's assertion that his

views were extreme, and pointed out that many groups and organisations would find

the material extremely offensive. He also challenged the argument that there was a

direct relationship between Sky and its subscribers, noting that Sky was broadcast in

many public places, hotels and motels.

Referring to the Sky Code of Practice, Mr Smits maintained that there was nothing

that prohibited Sky from broadcasting material that was pornographic. He described

this as "wildly irresponsible - bordering on criminally incompetent."

Mr Smits suggested that standard P24 was breached, in addition to P2 and P25,

because it encouraged anti-social behaviour, the

misrepresentations of women - what I call the pornographer's message -

deeply

based in women-hatred/misogyny - the relentless lie - the conspiracy of a

worldwide industry that dwarfs our national economy... .

In concluding, Mr Smits noted from the Authority's annual report that the whole

issue was still unresolved because more research was needed. He noted that there was

already a large amount of published research available on the dangerousness of soft

pornography. He argued that as a Human Rights issue the matter would have to be

dealt with eventually. He described the material as being in breach of both standards

because it was vile, repugnant and insidious.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 12 December 1994

Referring first to the final paragraph of Mr Smits' complaint, Sky observed that it had

concluded that Mr Smits intended to maintain an active campaign against all late night

adult entertainment offered by Sky. It also noted that it was forced to conclude that

the views expressed by Mr Smits were at the extreme of public opinion and were not

representative of currently accepted norms of decency and taste within the

community since no other complaints had been received.

With reference to the Authority's Decision No: 62/94, Sky noted that since it had not

appealed against the decision, it accepted the Authority's conclusion that in terms of

standard P2, the material in the Playboy format should be "screened so late that it is

clearly signalled to be outside of the mainstream programming." Sky pointed to its

decision to re-schedule its adult programming for a time slot no earlier than 11.30pm

and in most cases after midnight. It noted that these programmes commenced at

1.00am.

Before commenting specifically on the material, Sky pointed out that as a result of

Decision No: 62/94, it had implemented a policy to review all movies prior to

screening to ensure compliance with standards. After a movie was reviewed, a rating

was applied in accordance with set guidelines. It noted that when material carried a

R18 rating, it "leaves little doubt that [the material] contains scenes of either sex or

violence which are not suitable for general viewing." Sky also noted that it was

actively promoting parental control cards although it made an assumption that because

the material is clearly outside of mainstream programming that was sufficient

protection for children.

Sky emphasised the point made in Decision No: 62/94 that a lesser degree of

regulation was necessary than for free to air television because it was a discretionary

service.

Turning to the subject of the complaint, Sky noted that Playboy Secret Confessions

Parts 23 and 24 were of similar format. In both cases the fantasies were recreated

with actors. It wrote:

Recreation of the fantasies typically involves some male and female nudity and

scenes of simulated sexual activity, although the latter is of an inexplicit nature.

The female nudity consists primary upper torso shots and in no case is the

male

genitalia depicted.

Sky added that it did not believe this material was in breach of standard P2 because the

nudity was in the context of each item's theme. Secondly, it argued that the sexual

activity was of an inexplicit nature because there was no attempt to focus on the

mechanics of coitus. It compared the extent of nudity and sexual activity in the ribald

short story which was the subject of review in Decision No: 62/94 and argued that the

material was no more explicit and arguably had greater contextual integrity. Thirdly,

Sky noted that the programme was clearly identified as being suitable for audiences

aged 18 and older and finally that it was broadcast between 1.00 - 2.30am, well outside

of mainstream programming.

Turning to the standard P25 complaint, Sky argued that because the fantasies involved

both male and female dominant role playing, no viewer would conclude that women

were either inferior or superior. Even adopting the minority standard in Decision No:

62/94, Sky submitted that the standard P25 complaint should be dismissed. It wrote:

If anything, the material which is shown explodes the myth of male dominance

and reveals men and women as equal participants in the exploration of sexual

fantasy. Each segment is presented in a light hearted and fanciful vein and

because it is quite obviously male or female fantasy which is being explored the

likelihood of the programme ever being taken as positive or even insidious

encouragement of discriminatory attitudes towards either sex is, in our opinion,

very low.

With reference to the Playboy Centrefold feature, Sky argued that the material was

very similar to that included in the Authority's earlier decision and noted that although

the item featured female nudity there was nothing that was genitally explicit. It noted:

Having regard to the content of the programming, its similarity with the

"September 1986 Playboy Centrefold" material, the hour at which the

programme was broadcast, the nature of the advertising which preceded it and

the other contextual arguments available to pay television.

It concluded that there was nothing in the material to promote practices which were

discriminatory and suggested that having regard to the female dominant sequence in the

elevator, that it may have even challenged some inappropriate sexual stereotypes.

Sky enclosed a copy of its rating guidelines.

Mr Smits' Final Comment - 3 January 1995

With his response to Sky's arguments, Mr Smits included a book titled "Soft Porn"

Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family by Judith

Reisman and a definition of pornography which is used by Women against

Pornography.

Mr Smits suggested that the members of the Authority each read Dr Reisman's book

and that she be consulted directly by the Authority.

Rejecting Sky's assurance to the Authority that it had implemented new policies to

ensure that adult entertainment was screened outside of mainstream programming and

appropriate advisory information was given, Mr Smits described Sky as dishonest,

and pointed to the fact that it had now increased the frequency of its adult

programmes to five nights a week. He also rejected the argument that because it was a

subscription service it could broadcast material which was intended for adults and that

the late hour would preclude children viewers. Acknowledging that it was possible to

buy pornographic magazines and videos which were even more explicit than this

material, Mr Smits made the point that the broadcasting standards existed to prevent

the broadcast of pornography.

With respect to the content of the material, Mr Smits rejected Sky's argument that it

was erotic and not pornographic, pointing out that so-called erotica was soft porn,

while the more explicit material was characteristic of hard core pornography. He

described the format of the secret confessions segments as a vehicle to objectify the

women under the pretext of being educational.

Responding to Sky's claim that the women were not discriminated against and were

seen to take the dominant role in some of the fantasies, Mr Smits wrote:

Rape myths are twisted inside out - the women are portrayed as sexual

aggressors and wanting to be used and then cast aside (and grateful

afterwards). In this material women are carefully presented as being Ôequal'

yet they are the commodities (more accurately their flesh) being supplied.

He argued that any material which was created with an aim to arouse sexually a male

consumer was pornographic and consequently there was a likelihood that the

programme would encourage discriminatory attitudes towards women

In summary, Mr Smits commented on the role of Playboy in changing social attitudes

and challenged what he described as Sky's euphemistic analysis of the material. He

enclosed an advertisement from Time magazine for Sky which he claimed was straight

out of Playboy marketing because it targeted the male ego and reinforced the power

and control myths. He suggested it contained a coded message that porn was waiting

in the wings for Sky subscribers.

Finally, Mr Smits suggested that since Playboy caused behavioural changes in its

consumers it should be withdrawn (just as Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was

withdrawn when shown to cause changes to children's behaviour).