BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The film Basic Instinct was broadcast by Sky, among other times, at 8.30pm on 23

December and at 9.45pm 31 December 1994. It was also screened at 10.15pm on 20

March, 12.30am on 26 March and 8.30pm on 31 March 1995.

In its letter about the screening on 23 December, the Rape Prevention Group in

Christchurch complained to Sky Network Television Ltd about the scene where the

therapist was allegedly raped by the detective who was both patient and lover. In

addition to the scene being unnecessarily explicit, the Group wrote, the victim was

shown objecting to the assault initially but as it continued, her cries of distress became

cries of pleasure. Because rape was portrayed as being pleasurable and the negative

impacts were not shown, and because attitudes were shaped by how events were

portrayed on television, the Group said the message conveyed – that "No" really

meant "Yes" – breached a number of broadcasting standards. An identical complaint

was made by each of the other complainants.

In addition, three of the complainants referred to the screening on 31 December and

alleged that the opening scene where a man was murdered with an icepick contained

gratuitous violence.

Maintaining that the victim's response to the rape was anger, and the brief rape scene

was understandable in the context of the entire film, Sky declined to uphold that

aspect of the complaint. As for the opening scene, Sky maintained that the violence

portrayed was critical to the film's plot and, therefore, was not gratuitous.

Dissatisfied with Sky's response to these complaints, the complainants referred their

complaints separately to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Rape Prevention Group made separate complaints about the screenings on 20, 26

and 31 March 1995. Each complaint repeated the concerns about the scene where the

therapist was allegedly raped by the detective.

The complaints about the broadcasts in March also referred to the opening scene

which, in addition to the concern about gratuitous violence, alleged that the good taste

standard had been breached as it was inappropriate to screen such material at 8.30pm.

As Sky did not respond within 60 working days, these three complaints were referred

to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Act. Sky responded at the Authority's

request and its replies were then referred to the Authority by the complainant under

s.8(1)(a). Sky again maintained that the brief "rape" scene was understandable in the

context of the entire film and that the opening scene was essential to the film's plot.

It declined to uphold the complaints.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint about the

sexual encounter between the detective and the therapist. As for the complaints about

the opening sequence, it declined to uphold those which alleged gratuitous violence but

upheld the two (10.15pm on 20 March and 8.30pm on 31 March) which maintained

that the screening of the scene at those times contravened the standard requiring good

taste.

The Authority imposed an order requiring Sky to publish a summary of this decision in

"Skywatch".

The Procedure

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and

have read the correspondence which includes a petition (summarised in the

Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without

a formal hearing.

On 22 June 1995, the Authority issued a decision on seven complaints about the

screening of Basic Instinct by Sky on 23 and 31 December, in which it recorded that it

had decided to defer its final decision on those complaints.

It reported that it had decided to take that course as it had recently announced a major

review of standards P2 (good taste and decency) and P25 (discrimination against

women) of the Pay Television Code. It noted that while Basic Instinct was not a film

of the genre with which the review was principally concerned, there would inevitably

be some overlap. To avoid the possibility of confusion, the Authority thought it was

appropriate at that time to defer its determination of the complaints. In view of the

receipt of three further complaints about subsequent screenings of Basic Instinct, the

Authority has reassessed that ruling.

In the decision issued in June, the Authority accepted that complainants could well be

disappointed that the decision had been deferred. Further, the film has since been

screened by Sky on at least three occasions in March 1995 and each screening has

been the subject of a new complaint from the Rape Prevention Group in Christchurch.

Because there is no reason for the screenings not to continue – and each to be the

subject of a further complaint – the Authority concluded that it was appropriate to

proceed now to determine all the complaints.

In reaching that ruling, the Authority also took into account the time which could

elapse before the Pay Code Review was completed. At the time the review was

announced, the Authority's tentative timetable involved its completion by the end of

1995. However, for a number of reasons, mainly financial, that target will not be

achieved.

The Authority also noted that regardless of the outcome of the Pay Code Review, the

complaints about Basic Instinct would be judged on the Code as it existed at the time

when the film was screened. That is another matter to which the Authority has given

some weight in deciding to proceed with these complaints at this time.

As a corollary to this point, the Authority wants to emphasise that this decision

involves the interpretation and application of the existing Pay Code in relation to

these specific complaints. It is not to be taken as any indication of the outcome of the

Authority's review of that Code.

For the above reasons and on that basis, this decision contains the Authority's

determination of the complaints about Sky's screening of the film Basic Instinct of 23

and 31 December 1994 and 20, 26 and 31 March 1995.

The Complaints Overall

The Rape Prevention Group prepared a formal complaint about the broadcast by Sky

of the film Basic Instinct at 8.30pm on 23 December 1994 which, on the Group's

behalf, Rhonda Findlay sent to the broadcaster. The identical letter of complaint was

used by H Sutherland, F Mawson and S Findlay.

The letter from the Rape Prevention Group was used as the basis of the complaint

from J Pater, S Johnson and M Johnson. They referred to the screening of Basic

Instinct at 9.45pm on 31 December 1994 and, in addition to the matters raised by the

Rape Prevention Group, their letters complained about the violence contained in the

film's opening sequence.

The letter of complaint about the 23 December broadcast formed the basis of the

complaints about the screenings of Basic Instinct on 20, 26 and 31 March. They also

referred to the violence in the film's opening sequences which, in addition to the

standards in the earlier letters of complaint, alleged a breach of standards P22 and

s.4(1)(a) of Broadcasting Act.

This decision first addresses the complaint – made in all the letters of complaint –

about the sexual encounter between characters Dr Garner and Detective Curran. It

then deals with the complaints about the presentation and contents of the opening

sequence.

The Sexual Encounter Sequence

The Complaints

The sequence to which all the complainants referred was the encounter when the

character Dr Beth Garner had sexual intercourse in her apartment with the character

Detective Nick Curran.

The letter of complaint transcribed the dialogue which included initially the words

"No" and "Stop" accompanied by cries of distress. At the later stage of the

encounter, however, the Group wrote:

... the rape is portrayed as pleasurable for the victim. Dr Garner's cries of

distress become cries of pleasure along with visible signs of enjoyment.

The sequence, the complainants argued, breached s.4(1)(a) and (b) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989 and standards P2, P5, P7, P9, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24 and P25 of the Sky

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Sky's Response

Sky declined to uphold the complaint and, in doing so, dealt with each standard cited.

Principally, it argued that the brief scene between Dr Garner and Detective Curran did

not breach the standards when it was viewed within the overall context of the film.

Sky pointed out that in the film classified as an R18 thriller, Detective Curran was

undergoing mandatory therapy because of past incidents involving his volatile temper

and, moreover, he was sexually involved with his therapist Dr Garner.

In addition, he was battling – unsuccessfully – with his addiction to alcohol and

nicotine and was captivated by the manipulative Catherine Trammell, the suspect in

the vicious murder he was investigating. Shortly before the event complained about,

Detective Curran had had a number of drinks in a bar and had attacked a police

colleague. When he and Dr Garner entered her apartment, consensual sexual activity

became non-consensual when he forced a form of sexual intercourse on her against her

vocal objections.

Sky's response recorded the dialogue after the event to show that the film had not

condoned the detective's behaviour nor trivialised Dr Garner's objection to it. Sky

argued that the scene of the encounter, along with the preceding scene, provided

"graphic illustrations of the disintegration of Detective Curran's character".

Sky's reply concluded by emphasising the film's R18 classification.

The Standards Raised in the Complaints

The complainants alleged that the scene breached the provisions in s.4(1)(a) and (b) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989 which requires all broadcasters to maintain standards

consistent with:

(a) The observance of good taste and decency; and

(b) The maintenance of law and order.

In addition it maintained that the broadcast breached the following requirements in the

Pay Code under which broadcasters are required:

P2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which such

language or behaviour occurs.

P5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

P7   To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice which takes

advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

P9  To take care in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which invites imitation.

Moreover, breaches were claimed of the following standards under which Sky accepts:

P20 That it has a responsibility to ensure that when violence forms an integral

part of drama or news coverage the context can be justified.

P21 That the gratuitous use of violence for the purposes of heightened impact

is to be avoided.

P22 That devices and methods of inflicting pain or injury – particularly if

capable of easy imitation – will not be shown without the most careful

consideration.

P23 That the combination of violence and sexuality designed to titillate will not

be sanctioned.

P24 That any portrayal designed to encourage anti-social behaviour, including

violent and serious crime, and the abuse of drugs and liquor, will not be

sanctioned.

Finally, it was argued that the broadcast breached the standard under which Sky will

not permit:

P25  The portrayal of persons in programmes in a manner that encourages

denigration of, or discrimination against, sections of the community on

account of sex, race, age, disability or occupational status, or as a

consequence of religious, cultural or political beliefs.

The complaints provided reasons for the alleged breach of each standard nominated

and Sky replied to each aspect of the complaint.

Because of some overlap between the standards cited and the repetition of the

arguments advanced and, in the case of one standard, its inapplicability, the Authority

has dealt with all the issues raised in the following way.

Pursuant to its earlier decisions on this point when the matter has been raised, the

Authority regards the reference in standard P2 to context as an elaboration of the good

taste and decency requirement in s.4(1)(a). Accordingly, it accepts that these

standards are identical and, in this instance, it will consider the complaints which refer

to either s.4(1)(a) or standard P2 as an alleged breach of standard P2. As the

complainants' arguments, when they referred to either s.4(1)(b) and standard P5 were,

essentially repetitions of the arguments under s.4(1)(a) and P2, the Authority intends

to subsume the complaints under s.4(1)(b) and standard P5 under standard P2.

The Authority would also note at this stage that, from the correspondence received, it

regards the implication drawn by the complainants that "No" in the film meant "Yes"

as the central issue in the complaint and that this breached the requirement in the

standards for good taste and decency.

The Authority has interpreted the reference to a deceptive programme practice in

standard P7 as referring to a technical matter, and as there were no technical matters

raised by the complainants, the Authority does not intend to assess the film under

that standard. The Authority has adopted this approach because it has found in past

decisions that the point of substance usually raised by a complainant under standard

P7 (or its free-to-air equivalent, G7) is more directly addressed under other standards.

The complaints under standards P9 and P25 will be considered individually while the

standards referring to violence (P20–P24) will be dealt with as one group.

The Specific Standards – Complaints and Sky's Response

(i) Standard P2 – good taste and decency in context

As noted above, the Authority considered this to be the complainants' central focus.

The standard was contravened, the complainants wrote, for four reasons. First, the

scene was portrayed unnecessarily explicitly; secondly, the signs of pleasure

contributed to an erroneous belief that rape was pleasurable to women; thirdly, the

devastating effects of rape which occur in real life were not portrayed; and fourthly, it

was not acknowledged that a major offence had been committed. Overall:

The message emitted by this scene is that rape is acceptable behaviour and even

encourageable given the pleasurable reaction of the victim.

In its reply, Sky stressed the contextual aspects (referred to above under Sky's

response). It also noted that the film had received widespread public exposure in

movie theatres and as a video release. Moreover, it noted that 14 identical complaints

from Christchurch were the only ones received. Sky wrote:

In particular, Sky does not find the scene promotes the view that rape is

acceptable, trivial or glamorous behaviour. The scene is not a glamorous one and

Detective Curran is not shown in a glamorous, or even a sympathetic, light.

It concluded on this aspect of the complaint:

For the above reasons, Sky is of the view that, when seen in its overall context,

the scene is in conformity with such standards of propriety as are in accord with

accepted attitudes, values and expectations of New Zealanders.

(ii) Standard P9 – care in depicting criminal techniques

The complainants argued that the scene showed how to rape a woman, either vaginally

or anally. The scene invited imitation, they added, as the action was shown as

pleasurable for the woman and without serious consequences for the man.

In its reply, Sky argued that scenes of violence and other criminal activity were

common in films but that their depiction alone did not encourage or "invite" imitation.

(iii) Standards P20–P24 - depicting violence

The complainants referred to the specific requirements of each of the standards and

argued that the violence portrayed was not justified in context, was gratuitous, was

designed to titillate and had not acknowledged the serious consequences of such

behaviour.

Sky's response was to deny each allegation.

(iv) Standard P25 – encouraging denigration

Because the sequence reinforced a myth that women enjoy rape, the complainants

stated, women were portrayed as sex objects who want to be dominated.

Consequently, it encouraged denigration of women and discrimination against them.

In its reply on this aspect, Sky referred to previous decisions by the Authority, when

denigration had been interpreted as "the blackening of women as a class", and

discrimination meant encouraging the different treatment of women. It wrote:

In our view the scene neither blackens the reputation of women or rape victims

as a class nor will encourage different treatment of them. The character of

Detective Curran is not portrayed sympathetically and the scene is neither

glamorised nor trivialised. In our opinion, viewers would be likely to

sympathise with Dr Beth Garner and find the actions of Detective Curran highly

objectionable.

Referral of the Sexual Encounter Complaint to the Authority

Each complainant individually referred her or his complaint to the Authority,

objecting to aspects of Sky's decision. Because of the comprehensive way it

responded to the broadcaster's reply, the referral made by Rhonda Findlay on behalf

of the Rape Prevention Group has been summarised in this section of the decision.

The Group's referral repeated the points made in the letter of complaint and it

pointed out that Sky had not responded to one of the Group's principal objections -

that the rape, as they saw it, was portrayed as pleasurable for the victim. Moreover,

it argued that the dialogue quoted by Sky as reporting Dr Garner's anger was, in fact,

her anger based substantially on her jealousy of Catherine Trammell. Those few

sentences which were the film's entire portrayal of the incident's aftermath, the

Group continued, did not "negate the portrayal of her enjoyment of being raped in the

previous scene".

On the issue of good taste and decency overall, the Group wrote:

Rape in this scene is not portrayed as a crime, but rather as something

experimental, to be enjoyed by a woman. Detective Curran was a "success", in

that he made his victim enjoy his criminal activity. Crime in this scene is shown

as glamorous. There is no suggestion that a major crime has occurred.

...

While the attitude (as portrayed in the objectionable scene) that women enjoy

rape, may be an acceptable attitude for Sky Broadcasters and some people,

especially men who have been fed this deceptive lie by television and

pornography, it is not the accepted attitude of educated people, nor the

numerous women who have been victims of sexual violence.

Maintaining its argument that, despite its R18 classification, people were influenced

by what they saw on screen, the Group said that the "rape" scene could well be

copied. It also repeated its concerns about the violence shown.

The Group stated that the film encouraged "victim blaming" and that it encouraged the

denigration of women and had reduced them to the status of objects. It concluded:

While it is true that people have a choice as to whether they watch a film such

as Basic Instinct (although some people including children are subjected to it by

sharing the same living room as a Sky subscriber), the victims of those

influenced by such programmes have no choice. They do not choose to have

their lives destroyed by sexual violence.

The complainants forwarded to the Authority a petition with about 920 signatures

which read:

We, the undersigned, ask that the Broadcasting Standards Authority uphold the

formal complaints concerning the film "Basic Instinct", recently screened several

times on Sky Television. This film outrageously portrays rape as being

pleasurable for women, thus cultivating dangerous male attitudes, which

contribute to the escalating occurrence of sexual violence in society. We ask that

you strictly enforce the television codes relating to this film and other

programmes that contain sexual violence,

Sky's Response to the Authority

Sky emphasised "context" in its report to the Authority. The film had been classified

as R18 and the broadcast had included that information. The "rape" scene, it

continued, amounted to 30 seconds and the part the Group considered had portrayed

rape as pleasurable was less than five seconds long. Because films did not show good

as always triumphing over evil but dealt with reality, Sky said that rape,

unfortunately, did not always have serious negative consequences for the rapist. It

referred to the film The Accused which confronted the "she asked for it" theory but in

which the rapists were not convicted of rape.

As for standard P9 (imitating criminal behaviour), Sky argued:

The link between violence on the screen and copycat crimes is controversial and

as yet unproven.

There is comprehensive research literature in this area and studies which go both

ways. In this report sexual violence is not in a different category to other forms

of violence or illegal activity.

It also referred to the scene in Gone With the Wind when Rhett Butler forced himself

on Scarlett O'Hara. In that instance, it wrote, there were no serious consequences for

Rhett, and Scarlett, next morning, was depicted as being very happy.

It concluded:

Our original response to Ms Findlay of 21 February 1995 dealt

comprehensively with the issues raised by the Rape Prevention Group and there

is little further that Sky can add. We have given serious consideration to the

complaint in the context of the Broadcasting Act and the relevant Programme

Standards and re-iterate our view that neither the Act nor the Broadcasting Code

for Sky Television have been breached.

The Opening Sequence

The Complaints

Three of the complainants who referred to the screenings of 31 December 1994 alleged

that the opening sequence involving "sex, bondage and murder" had breached

standards P9 and P21. Standard P9 was contravened, it was said, because an easily

imitated gruesome method of murder was shown. Standard 21 was breached, it was

alleged, as violence was used gratuitously for the purposes of heightened impact. The

Group's complaints about the broadcasts of 20, 26 and 31 March repeated the

concerns about the "sex, bondage and murder" in the opening sequence and, in addition

to standards P9 and P21, alleged a breach of standard P22 and s.4(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act. Standard P22 requires that care be taken before showing easily

imitable methods of inflicting pain and, the Group argued, the scene clearly showed

how to tie someone up in order to inflict pain.

Section 4(1)(a), like standard P2, imposes the good taste requirement and the

Authority recorded above that it intended to assess complaints which referred to

s.4(1)(a) under standard P2. These standards are recorded on pp. 5–6 above.

The Group maintained that a scene which showed explicit sex with bondage did not

comply with that requirement. Bondage scenes, it added, should not ever be shown

on television, and certainly not as early as 8.30pm. Indeed, the Group questioned

whether films which were classified as R18 should be permitted on television. It

wrote:

While this and the other scenes are of 'voluntary bondage', we are concerned

about what is happening in reality, ie some men are subjecting women,

especially their partners, to being tied up after receiving ideas from such scenes

of bad taste and indecency in films and from other sources.

Sky's response

In its response to this aspect of the complaint, Sky combined its reply to standards

P9 and P22. It maintained that its comments about these standards in relation to the

encounter complained about were also applicable to the opening sequence. It wrote:

The general public is clearly able to distinguish fact from fiction in the context of

these type of films and we do not accept viewers are likely to attempt to murder

someone with an icepick as a result of viewing Basic Instinct.

The film was not, it argued, a guide on how to murder through the use of an icepick.

As for standard P22, Sky maintained that the violence was neither gratuitous nor

included for the purposes of heightened impact. It stated:

The whole opening scene is approximately 1 minute 19 seconds in duration.

The icepick murder itself is only about 8 seconds long. The scene is undeniably

violent. However, Sky does not accept that the violence is gratuitous when seen

in the context of the film as a whole. The film is an R18 murder mystery/thriller

with a provocative theme. The violence in the opening scene sets the stage for

what follows and is critical to the development of the plot line.

After explaining aspects of the plot, Sky described the opening sequence as

"absolutely critical" and one which set the stage for much of what followed.

Sky did not specifically address the aspect of the complaint that the opening sequence

contravened the requirement for good taste in standard P2. However, Sky's

comments in response to the allegation that the sexual encounter scene

transgressed standard P2 were that the film was screened in an adults only time

slot, was classified as R18 and that classification was clearly obvious to viewers.

Moreover, it reported, the only complaint was received from the Group and

those who made use of the Group's letter.

The Authority's Findings

Overall

The Authority repeats that this decision deals with the alleged breaches of the Pay

Code standards at the time Basic Instinct was screened by Sky in December 1994 and

March 1995. The standards may change following the conclusion of the current

review of the Pay Code. Furthermore, this decision refers to standards in the Pay

Code; it is not dealing with the standards in the Free-to-air Television Code.

The Authority's decision is confined to the broadcast of the film Basic Instinct. The

Authority found it to be an intellectually complex film and noted that it was classified

by the film censor as R18 (restricted to persons aged 18 years and older) and

distributed to cinemas on that basis. The screening by Sky clearly recorded that

classification. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the requirements in the Television

Code differ in part from the obligations on the film censor when classifying films.

In the Authority's view, the film was concerned essentially with ambiguity. Not only

did this apply to actions and comments, it was particularly relevant to the nature of

the sexuality portrayed. The Authority was of the view that the film did not deal

with sexuality in a titillating way. Rather, it was challenging – if not confronting – to

the viewer. The aspects of the film which raised questions about the nature of the

sexuality did so in a way which could be described as legitimate. Indeed, the

Authority concluded, the film's legitimate purpose distinguished it from the genre

which can be described as debasing to both the viewer and the participant, and with

which the Pay Code review is grappling.

The Encounter

(i) Standards P2 and P5

As was noted above, the Authority considered the complainants' principal concern

about the film was the scene in which they said that Dr Garner was raped by

Detective Curran and that, at the end of the sequence, her cries of pain (or outrage)

had vanished. The Authority agreed with the complainants that the cries had vanished

by the end of the scene and it accepted that Dr Garner's objections had been replaced

with, at least, compliance. Accordingly, the Authority understood the complaint that

the film, potentially, could contribute to the rape myth that "No" really means "Yes".

However, before deciding which standards might have been transgressed in that

situation, the Authority was required by the standards to consider the context of the

film in which the scene complained about occurred.

Sky compared Basic Instinct with Gone With the Wind as both had arguably portrayed

socially unacceptable behaviour. Whereas Basic Instinct included part of the physical

encounter, but only a little of the victim's reaction, Gone With the Wind excluded the

encounter, but showed the victim displaying considerable pleasure the following

morning.

In its decision on that scene in Gone With the Wind (No: 8/94, dated 21 February 1994

following a complaint from the Rape Prevention Group in Christchurch after the film

had been shown by TVNZ), the Authority declined to uphold the complaint in the

circumstances observing among other matters:

In context, including the tempestuous on-going relationship between the two

central characters as well as Scarlett's erratic behaviour, the Authority accepted

that the scenes complained about – a very short segment of a lengthy movie –

had a place in the story's development.

The continuing undoubted influence of the film was considered and, specifically,

whether the actions of the two leading characters could be seen as models for

behaviour today. While accepting that it was not possible to eliminate entirely

any current influence, the Authority decided that more modern social influences

would have more effect than these scenes from a classic film made in the 1930s

about the American civil war in the 1860s.

Following the approach adopted in that decision, the Authority was firmly of the

view that the sequence in Basic Instinct which was complained about had to be

considered in context.

The pair – Dr Garner and Detective Curran – were involved in an on-going relationship

and the Authority immediately acknowledges that depicting forced sexual encounters

within a relationship requires a careful examination of the context.

The film acknowledged that it was the 15th occasion that these two highly strung

people had had sexual intercourse with each other. Although more was known about

Detective Curran's character at the time of the incident, Dr Garner's character was

developed later in the film. Both were shown to be very "on-edge" people involved in

a stormy relationship. Indeed, their consensual sexual encounter reflected an absence

of tenderness or affection, although both had presumably been willing participants

during their previous couplings. Dr Garner was angry that Detective Curran had been

sexually engaged with Catherine Trammell, but appeared only mildly surprised that

her lover – and patient – in dealing with a difficult situation had become violent and had

responded to the stress with sexual aggression towards her. She made little fuss about

his behaviour after the event. A strong character in her own right, Dr Garner's

minimal resistance to the attack, while not in any way a justification or excuse for

Curran's behaviour, seemed to be more of a gesture than a definite show of resistance

by a strong-minded person.

In the context, the scene could be described as "sex without sex" or a struggle

involving the power each held in the relationship. These are criteria which are

frequently related to rape and, thus, the Authority fully appreciated the

complainants' motivation in complaining that the scene advanced unacceptable rape

myths. Nevertheless, the Authority considered that the sequence, given the

relationship of the characters, dealt with matters ambiguously. Because Dr Garner

and Detective Curran were not involved in a conventional relationship and because

both were dealing with a variety of pressures, the scene could be interpreted in a

variety of ways and, in the Authority's view, it challenged rather than reinforced the

rape myths.

Because of the context which involved two strong characters dealing with unusual

stress, the Authority concluded that the rape scene in Basic Instinct did not breach

standard P2 of the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice. It did not breach the standard

as the sequence neither promoted the "No" means "Yes" myth nor did it broadcast the

scene in unnecessarily explicit detail.

Furthermore, the film was classified as R18. The Authority is aware that, although it

was shown in "AO" time at 8.30pm, it could well have been viewed by people under

that age. It has not taken this point further under this aspect of the complaint. It

believes that it is more relevant to the opening scenes and the Authority's approach to

that sequence in the film is dealt with below.

(ii) Standard P9

This standard (and its equivalent in the free-to-air code, G9) has come before the

Authority infrequently and, on each occasion, the Authority expresses its concern

about the inadequacies of the standard's stricture (eg Decision No: 9/91, 19 March

1991). The Authority's interpretation results in the standard meaning:

Care should be taken in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which might attract imitation.

Depiction of a technique of crime does not amount to a breach. That the depiction

"might attract imitation" is also insufficient to amount to a breach. Only if the

depiction which might attract imitation is done without care does a breach ensue. It is

an acknowledgment that many broadcasts, for a variety of reasons, might depict

techniques of crime but the standard is only contravened should the depiction,

through carelessness, attract imitation.

Basic Instinct depicted a technique of crime, albeit briefly, but the Authority did not

accept that it would attract imitation or that the particular technique portrayed was

original. In the unlikely event that it did attract imitation, the Authority was satisfied

that the requirement for care had been met and, accordingly, the standard had not been

breached.

(iii) Standards P20–P24

Examining the requirements contained in each of the standards cited, the Authority

accepted that the sexual encounter between Detective Curran and Dr Garner was an

integral part of the drama and thus justified in context and that violence had not been

shown gratuitously for the purposes of heightened impact. The Authority concluded

that while the scene contained violence and sexuality, it could not be regarded as being

included for the purposes of titillation.

With regard to the aspect of standard P24 relating to the encouragement of anti-social

behaviour, the complainants on several occasions expressed concern that Detective

Curran was not required to face the consequences of his criminal behaviour. The

Authority acknowledges that there is little, if any, evidence that a person, whether a

rapist, murderer or thief, will be "encouraged" to commit such behaviour merely

because it has been portrayed in a film. The possibility of criminal penalties is but

one deterrent among many. The standard prohibits the encouragement of anti-social

behaviour, not just its portrayal. Encouragement did not occur, as Sky explained and

the Authority concurred, as Detective Curran's behaviour was not shown in a positive

light. Overall, the Authority decided that it did not encourage anti-social behaviour.

(iv) Standard P25

As Sky observed, the Authority has interpreted denigration of women as "the

blackening" of the reputation of women as a class, and discrimination against women

as meaning that the activities portrayed encourages the different treatment of women.

Further, encouragement has been interpreted in an active sense, so that for

discrimination or denigration to be encouraged, scenes which principally reinforce

existing attitudes are insufficient to amount to a breach.

The Authority did not accept that the portrayal, which focussed on two distinct

individuals in unusual circumstances, encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination

against, rape victims or women generally.

Summary

While appreciating the complainants' concern that broadcasts may not only repeat but

reinforce out-dated beliefs about rape, the Authority does not accept that all

discussions or portrayals of rape or other variations in sexual encounters must present

only one perspective. While some attitudes are based on myths and their inclusion in

a broadcast could contravene the standards if advanced seriously, the Authority

understands that different circumstances have to be taken into account on different

occasions. For that reason, it believes that context is of overriding importance when

deciding on a particular complaint.

Taking into account that requirement, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint

from the Rape Prevention Group and six others that the "rape" sequence in Basic

Instinct breached the nominated standards.

The Opening Sequence

(i) Standards P9 and P22

As in their complaint about the sexual encounter, the complainants who alleged that

the opening sequence breached these standards argued that the scene graphically

illustrated a gruesome method of murder which was easy to imitate.

Sky's response was similar to its comments about the other sequence when it

maintained that the film did not provide step-by-step instructions for a potential

murder.

The Authority's response was also similar and it accepted that the technique of

murder contained in the sequence would not attract imitation in contravention of these

standards.

(ii) Standard P21

In reply to the Group's complaint that the sequence with which the film began used

graphic violence for the purpose of heightened impact, Sky maintained that the

violence was neither gratuitous nor had it been included to create a heightened impact.

Rather, it stated, the icepick murder was critical to the entire film.

It was a sequence which the Authority found very powerful and it agreed with Sky

that it was central to the storyline. Accordingly, the Authority did not accept that

standard P21 had been contravened.

(iii) Standard P2

As the Authority explained in the section entitled The Standards Raised in the

Complaint, it accepts that reference to context noted in P2 is relevant when it is

assessing a complaint which alleges that the good taste standard set out in s.4(1)(a) of

the Act has been transgressed. Consequently, it has considered the Group's

complaint about the opening sequence under standard P2.

The Group stated that two aspects of the opening sequence breached the requirement

for good taste. First, bondage scenes were inappropriate on television and, secondly,

that films classified as R18 should not be screened at 8.30pm.

Sky has not dealt specifically with these matters and the Authority has referred to the

broadcaster's comments elsewhere on standard P2 where context has been stressed by

Sky. Sky has also pointed out that Basic Instinct was screened at 8.30pm which is

classified in the Pay Television Code as "Adults Only" time.

The Authority accepted that the scene was essential in the context of the film. The

bondage was consensual and, given the Authority's opinion that the film's sexual

interactions were not included for the sake of titillation, the Authority had no doubt in

declining to uphold the aspect which argued that the bondage in itself breached

standard P2.

As will now be apparent, the Authority considered Basic Instinct to be a powerful and

compelling film. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that any substantial cuts could

have unjustifiably reduced the film's challenge to the viewer.

Thus, while the Authority accepted that the film should be screened on television

uncut, it was required by this aspect of the Group's complaint to decide whether or

not it should be shown at 8.30pm.

The film dealt with ambiguities, especially ambiguities in sexuality and lifestyle, in a

challenging, adult and legitimate manner. Some broadcasts contain storylines at

different levels for young and old. Basic Instinct did not fit into that category: it was a

film designed for the adult viewer. The central characters interacted in a realistically

adult manner. The communication between them was on a range of psychological

levels which could challenge adult viewers and would be likely to prove confusing and

distressing for younger people. Further, the viewer's relationship with the main

protagonists varied as the story developed.

In view of these matters, the Authority was strongly of the opinion that it was not

the type of film to which young people should be exposed. The film censor's

classification of R18 (restricted to persons aged 18 years and older) is enforced by the

cinema operators. The Pay Television Code accepts that "AO" time begins at 8.00pm

but Sky, voluntarily, has complied with the free-to-air Code watershed of 8.30pm.

As viewers under the age of 18 years do not necessarily stop watching television at

8.30pm, the Authority does not accept that films classified as R18 can automatically

be shown immediately after the 8.30pm watershed.

There may be films classified as R18 where 8.30pm is an acceptable time. The

Authority does not intend to reach a general ruling on the point.

Basic Instinct was plainly a film made for the adult viewer. It opened with a dramatic

scene where a woman, while having a sexual encounter, viciously stabbed her partner

on several occasions with an ice-pick. In the next scene the Police were examining the

man's bloodied and naked body. This was an essential scene but, in the Authority's

opinion, it was too gruesome and explicit to be broadcast between 8.30–8.35pm.

Standard P2 refers to context, which includes the time at which a programme is

broadcast. The Authority concluded that screenings of Basic Instinct which started

before 11.00pm breached the requirement in standard P2 to take into consideration

currently accepted behavioural norms of decency and taste. The Rape Prevention

Group complained about this aspect of the screenings of Basic Instinct on 20, 26 and

31 March. As the broadcast of Basic Instinct on 20 and 31 March started before

11.00pm, the Authority upholds that aspect of the complaints.

For the reasons given above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints

that the alleged rape sequence and the violence in the opening scene in the

film Basic Instinct, broadcast by Sky Network Television Ltd, breached the

nominated standards in the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice except to the

extent outlined in the following paragraph.

The Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Sky Network

Television Ltd of the film Basic Instinct at 10.15pm on 20 March and at 8.30pm

on 31 March 1995, because of the time of the screening, breached standard P2

of the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

As the Authority explained in the decision, the complainants focussed principally on

the "rape" scene and those aspects were not upheld. The alleged gratuitous violence

was the secondary issue raised in the complaints about the broadcasts in December.

The Authority declined to uphold those matters.

A complaint that the time of the screenings of Basic Instinct contravened the good

taste and decency standard was raised in relation to three broadcasts in March this

year. The complaint further questioned whether films classified as R18 should ever be

screened on television.

The Authority observes that the criteria in the Films, Videos, and Publications

Classifications Act 1993, pursuant to which films are classified, and those in the

Broadcasting Act 1989, which applies to broadcasting including television, are

different. In the decision, the Authority stated that it was not prepared at this stage

to reach a decision as to whether films classified as R18 should or should not ever be

shown on television.

Because of the distinct differences in the criteria, it is imperative that a broadcaster

decides for itself, before it screens a film classified under the Films, Videos, and

Publications Act, the extent to which that classification is applicable to the proposed

broadcast. The Authority considers that it should have been abundantly clear that

Basic Instinct, because of the opening sequence, should not have been broadcast until

late in the evening. In view of this conclusion, the Authority imposed the following

order.

Order

Pursuant to s.13(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Sky

Network Television Ltd to publish a brief summary of this decision arising

from the broadcast of Basic Instinct at 10.15pm on 20 March and 8.30pm on 31

March 1995. The statement will emphasise the broadcaster's responsibility to

ensure that films which are broadcast on television comply with the appropriate

standards in the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice issued pursuant

to the Broadcasting Act. The statement, the contents and positioning of which

are to be approved by the Authority, shall be published in an issue of

"Skywatch" distributed within two months of the date of this decision.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
9 November 1995

Appendix I

Rape Prevention Group's First Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 18

January 1995

The Rape Prevention Group in Christchurch - through its co-ordinator Rhonda

Findlay - complained to Sky Network Television Ltd about the film Basic Instinct

screened on Sky at 8.30pm on Friday 23 December. The Group's complaint focussed

on the scene when the character Dr Beth Garner was raped in her apartment by the

detective played by Michael Douglas.

Transcribing the dialogue of the scene which initially included the words "No" and

"Stop" accompanied by cries of distress, the Group said that at the later stages of the

assault:

... the rape is portrayed as pleasurable for the victim. Dr Garner's cries of

distress become cries of pleasure, along with visible signs of enjoyment.

The complainant stated that the scene breached the requirements in s.4(1)(a) and (b)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and standards P2, P5, P7, P9, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24

and P25 of the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The good taste requirements in s.4(1)(a) and standard P2 were contravened, the

complainant argued, because the rape was portrayed unnecessarily explicitly, because

the signs of pleasure contributed to the erroneous belief that rape is pleasurable to

women and because the devastating effects which would occur in real life were not

portrayed. Moreover, despite the reference to context in standard P2, the specific

context did not warrant the inclusion of the unacceptable scene.

As for the maintenance of law and order contained in s.4(1)(b) and standard P5, the

Group repeated the points referred to under good taste and said, in addition, that by

not stating that a major offence had been committed:

The message emitted by this scene is that rape is acceptable behaviour and even

encourageable given the pleasurable reaction of the victim.

Moreover, not only was rape portrayed as acceptable or even glamorised, the serious

criminal nature of the offence of rape was undermined and trivialised.

Standard P7 states that deceptive programme practices are to be avoided and it had

been breached, the complainant wrote, by suggesting the women, despite initial

objection, will ultimately enjoy rape if forceful behaviour is pursued. Further, as the

serious consequences of rape were not shown, viewers would become desensitised to

sexual violence.

Broadcasters are required under standard P9 to exercise care in items which explain

techniques of crime and, the complainant commented:

The scene in question blatantly and graphically depicts a method of how to rape

a woman, either vaginally, or anally. It specifically invites imitation for this

reason and because the outcome is portrayed as being pleasurable for the

woman. It also invites imitation because it explains the technique of a serious

crime, recognised by New Zealand law, and at the same time suggests that no

serious crime has been committed. Imitation is furthermore encouraged as the

film portrays no negative consequences for the offender.

Standards P20 - P24 deal with the portrayal of violence and the Group said that they

were contravened because, in addition to the points noted above, sexual violence was

shown gratuitously to heighten the impact of the scene. Moreover, the scene was

designed to titillate and the possibility of serious negative consequences for the

offender was not included.

The final standard allegedly breached, P25, states that sections of the community

cannot be portrayed in a way which encourages denigration or discrimination and, the

Group stated:

The portrayal of the character Dr Beth Garner in this particular scene

encourages denigration and discrimination against women because it reinforces

the myth that women enjoy, and really want to be raped, and it encourages

classification of women as sex objects who want to be dominated. It also

denigrates and discriminates against rape victims by portraying them as basically

non-existent ie, women enjoy rape, suffer no serious consequences, and in

essence, are not victims.

The Group attached to the complaint some comments from victims and rapists to

show how attitudes were shaped by the portrayal of rape by the media.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky advised the complainant that it did not uphold the complaint and gave reasons

under each of the standards nominated.

With regard to the alleged breach of the good taste standards, Sky said that the 30

second scene between characters Dr Beth Garner and Detective Nick Curran had to be

seen within the overall context of a film classified as an R18 thriller. The contextual

matters included the fact that Detective Curran was undergoing mandatory therapy

because of past incidents involving his volatile temper and, moreover, he was sexually

involved with therapist Dr Garner.

He was also fighting a losing battle with his addiction to alcohol and cigarettes and was

mesmerised by the manipulative Catherine Trammell. Further, after leaving the bar

where Detective Curran had drunk a number of drinks and attacked a police inspector:

[He] and Dr Garner return to her apartment and commence consensual sexual

activity, which leads into the scene to which you refer, where Detective Curran

forces himself upon Dr Garner. The scene is contextually consistent with the

preceding bar scene and provides further graphic illustration of the disintegration

of Detective Curran's character.

In response to the complaint, Sky transcribed the dialogue between the parties after

the event to show that the behaviour was not trivialised and that Dr Garner's

objections were recorded.

Sky also noted as contextual matters that the film was screened at 8.30pm - an adult

time slot - that it was clearly identified as suitable for viewers aged 18 years and over,

and that it had received widespread public exposure in movie theatres and as a video

release. Sky commented as well that from 180,000 subscribers, it had only received

complaints from the Group and thirteen other people from Christchurch, who have

used an identical standard letter.

In conclusion on the good taste aspect of the complaint, Sky stated:

For the above reasons, Sky is of the view that, when seen in its overall context,

the scene is in conformity with such standards of propriety as are in accord with

accepted attitudes, values and expectations of New Zealanders.

As for the aspect of the complaint which referred to the maintenance of law and order,

Sky contended that the scene did not promote the view that rape was acceptable,

trivial or glamorous behaviour. Therefore, the standards had not been breached.

As there was no evidence of any deceptive programme practice, standard P7 had not

been contravened.

With regard to the alleged breach of standard P9, Sky maintained that the scene

complained about did not invite imitation. Depictions of scenes of violence were

common in films but depiction alone did not encourage viewers to imitate the acts

shown.

Dealing with the standards relating to violence, Sky contended that the scene could be

justified in context, was not gratuitous, was not designed to titillate, and did not

encourage anti-social behaviour.

When responding to the complaint under standard P25, Sky noted that the

Broadcasting Standards Authority interpreted denigration of women as the blackening

of women as a class and that discrimination against women meant the portrayal of

activities which encouraged the different treatment of women. It wrote:

In our view the scene neither blackens the reputation of women or rape victims

as a class nor will encourage different treatment of them. The character of

Detective Curran is not portrayed sympathetically and the scene is neither

glamorised nor trivialised. In our opinion, viewers would be likely to

sympathise with Dr Beth Garner and find the actions of Detective Curran highly

objectionable.

The Group's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 12 March

1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, Ms Findlay on the Group's behalf referred the

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Rather than repeat the reasons for the complaint, the referral took exception to some

of the matters in Sky's reply.

1) The Group maintained that as s.4(1)(a) did not refer to context, complaints

which cited it should not be "watered down" by referring to another clause. It

added:

Nevertheless, however interpreted, the scene which unrealistically

portrays rape as pleasurable for the victim, breaches Ôgood taste and

decency' with or without contextual conditions.

2) Arguing that Sky had not responded to one of the Group's principal objections,

that the rape was portrayed as pleasurable for the victim, the complainant again

insisted that regardless of context, the good taste standard had been transgressed.

3) Arguing that Dr Garner's anger was based substantially on her jealousy of

Catherine Trammell, the Group maintained that the few sentences which

contained the film's entire portrayal of the rape aftermath did not negate the

portrayal of Dr Garner's enjoyment at having been raped.

4) The absence of other complaints, the Group observed, highlighted the fact that

people had become desensitised.

5) As the formal complaint process was difficult and was not well understood and

as complainants were discouraged by broadcasters and the Broadcasting

Standards Authority when they declined to uphold a majority of complaints, the

Group had sent out a standard letter to people who had expressed concern but

did not have the necessary information to write their own personal letters.

6) On the overall good taste aspect of the complaint, the Group wrote:

While the attitude (as portrayed in the objectionable scene) that women

enjoy rape, may be an acceptable attitude for Sky broadcasters and some

people, especially men who have been fed this deceptive lie by television

and pornography, it is not the accepted attitude of educated people, nor

the numerous women who have been victims of sexual violence.

7) As for the law and order aspects of the complaint, the act of rape was not

portrayed as a crime but rather as something which was experimental and to be

enjoyed by a woman.

8) The scene breached the deceptive programme prohibition in standard P7, the

Group maintained, as rape was portrayed as pleasurable and without negative

consequences and, in particular, suggested that forced sex on a partner was not

really rape.

9) Standards P9 and P22 were breached, the Group argued, because:

The fact that the film was advertised as an R18 sex thriller does not negate

the fact that people are heavily influenced and to some extent

subconsciously copy what they see on television. ... The violent sex

thriller context of the film adds to the likelihood of the rape scene being

copied, with additional violence, rather than making the scene more

permissible.

The Group concluded this section in its letter by insisting that Basic Instinct

provided "good and encourageable copy material".

10) Referring to the other standards relating to violence, the Group said that neither

the graphic depiction of a rape scene nor the victim's pleasure could be justified

or glamorised.

11) As for standard P25, the Group stated that the scene degraded and demeaned

women and reduced them to the status of objects. Males between the age of 18

- 30 years would have seen that Dr Garner had "enjoyed" the rape. The film

encouraged "victim blaming" which "blackens and stigmatises the reputation of

rape victims" and, the Group added:

If Sky broadcasters do not consider that the rape scene is glamorised or

trivialised, we can only comment that the broadcasters must consider Dr

Garner's positive reactions to rape are normal, and have no realistic

perception of rape nor the agony of a rape victim.

12) Acknowledging that viewers had a choice as to whether they watched films such

as Basic Instinct, the complainant argued that victims or those influenced by

such programmes had no choice and had their lives "destroyed by sexual

violence". It concluded by asking that the television laws and standards relating

to this film be strictly enforced and that its complaint be fully upheld.

Appended to the referral was a summary of the 1975 British rape case, DPP v

Morgan and an extract from David Shapcott's "The Face of the Rapist" reading Myth

8 - She Loved It.

On 27 March 1995, the Authority received a petition containing 39 signatures asking

the Authority to uphold the formal complaint about Sky's broadcast of Basic Instinct

and that the standards relating to programmes containing sexual violence be strictly

enforced. A further 40 signatures signed the petition received on 6 April and a total of

approximately 850 signatures on the petition was received during the following weeks.

Sky's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 4 April 1995

Noting that it had dealt comprehensively with the matters raised in its response to the

complaint, Sky confined its comments to the matters raised in the referral. (The

following numbering refers to the points in the referral).

1) Context was essential, Sky maintained, when assessing good taste and decency

and the scene complained about was contained in a thriller classified as R18.

2) As the total scene amounted to only 30 seconds and the part the Group

considered had portrayed rape as pleasurable lasted only 5 seconds, Sky did not

accept, given the overall context, that rape was shown to be pleasurable for

victims.

3) Dr Garner's anger was clearly related to the violation as evidenced by the

dialogue.

4) Sky said that it treated all complaints seriously and received no other complaints

- whether formal or informal - about Basic Instinct.

6) Sky wrote:

Sky does not support the view that women enjoy rape and does not

condone any such attitude on the part of others.

7) Explaining that films did not portray a sanitised version of life where good

always triumphed over evil and that it was regrettable that rape frequently went

unreported, Sky argued that it was unrealistic to expect a film to show "serious

negative consequences" for an offender. It added:

Even in films such as "The Accused" which is widely recognised as a

landmark film which directly confronts a number of prevalent rape myths,

the rapist effectively "gets away with it" and is convicted of aggravated

assault rather than rape.

8) With reference to standard P7, Sky maintained that the film was not designed to

titillate and had not used a deceptive programme practice. It argued that

standard P2 was the appropriate one to deal with the issue raised by the Group

under this point.

9) In relation to the alleged breaches of standards P9 and P22, Sky began:

The link between violence on the screen and copycat crimes is

controversial and as yet unproven.

There is comprehensive research literature in this area and studies which

go both ways. In this report sexual violence is not in a different category

to other forms of violence or illegal activity.

Pointing out that if the Group's arguments were accepted, Sky said a wide

variety of films could not be shown as socially unacceptable behaviour was

frequently depicted. It referred to a number of mainstream films, noting:

Indeed, there is a memorable scene in "Gone with the Wind" where a

drunken Rhett Butler forces himself upon a protesting Scarlett O'Hara.

Although clearly not as graphic as the present scene, many of Ms

Findlay's objections would apply equally to this scene. In particular

Scarlett O'Hara is portrayed the following day as having enjoyed the

previous nights activities and there is no "serious consequences" for Mr

Butler.

Maintaining that the depiction of socially unacceptable behaviour in itself did

not invite imitation, Sky expressed the opinion that standards P9 and P22 were

designed to capture a film which showed how to assemble a Molotov cocktail

rather than referring to a film which showed a character throwing such a device.

10) Sky referred to the points in its letter of 21 February when it dealt with the

standards referring to violence.

11) Sky maintained its belief that the scene complained about did not involve the

degradation of women and it described the complainant's reference to viewers

aged 18 - 30 years as pure conjecture.

12) In conclusion, Sky wrote:

Our original response to Ms Findlay of 21 February 1995 dealt

comprehensively with the issues raised by the Rape Prevention Group

and there is little further that Sky can add. We have given serious

consideration to the complaint in the context of the Broadcasting Act and

the relevant Programme Standards and re-iterate our view that neither the

Act nor the Broadcasting Code for Sky Television have been breached.

The Group's Final Comment - 13 April 1995

In its final statement accompanied by further petitions, Ms Findlay on behalf of the

Rape Prevention Group maintained that people could be influenced by television -

whether the item was 5 or 30 seconds long. It quoted a letter to the Group from the

recently retired Commissioner of Police (John Jamieson) who maintained that some

people imitated behaviour they saw on television. Finally, it also reported comments

from some viewers who were unable to understand that the scene in Basic Instinct

complained about involved a rape, in order to indicate how the media influenced

attitudes.

Appendix II

Rape Prevention Group's Second Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 9

April 1995

The Rape Prevention Group, through its co-ordinator Rhonda Findlay, complained to

Sky Network Television Ltd about the screening of Basic Instinct at 10.15pm on 20

March. The Group initially focused on the scene in which the character Dr Beth

Garner was raped in her apartment by the detective played by Michael Douglas. That

aspect of the complaint was identical to the one summarised in Appendix I.

The complainant then objected to the film's opening scene which, it said, included

"sex, bondage and murder". That scene, it continued, breached the requirement for

good taste and decency in s.4(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act as, not only was it in bad

taste to screen bondage scenes on television, it was inappropriate to screen such

scenes at 8.30pm. The Group questioned whether it was appropriate to ever show

films classified as R18 on television and added:

While this and the other scenes are of Ôvoluntary bondage', we are concerned

about what is happening in reality, ie some men are subjecting women,

especially their partners, to being tied up after receiving ideas from such scenes

of bad taste and indecency in films and from other sources.

The Group alleged that the opening scene, in addition to contravening s.4(1)(a), also

breached standards P9, P21 and P22 of the Sky Code.

Further Correspondence

As Sky did not respond to the complaint within 60 working days, on 10 July on the

Group's behalf, Ms Findlay referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. At the Authority's request,

Sky responded to the Group's complaint.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 July 1995

Sky's response to the complaint was identical to its reply to the Group in relation to

the screening on 23 December - summarised in Appendix I.

The Group's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 July 1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, Ms Findlay on the Group's behalf referred the

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Suggesting that the lack of a response from Sky within 60 working days intimated that

it had had no intention of replying, Ms Findlay maintained that the rape scene

perpetuated the myth that "no" means "yes" and that women secretly wanted sex if a

man persevered. It commented:

Before the objectionable rape scene, Detective Curran and Beth Garner do

commence consensual sexual activity, but only after the Detective has violently

slammed Ms Garner against the wall. What type of message is this giving to

men about how to Ôwoo' a woman into sexual activity.

It also repeated its concerns about the inadequacy of the comments between the

parties the following day as to the impact and consequences of such behaviour -

discussed in Appendix I.

Maintaining that people were influenced by television, Ms Findlay argued:

Basic Instinct's particularly degrading depiction of how one can rape or

sodomise a woman is debased. It not only breaches good taste and decency, but

provides explicit positioning and method, which is easy to imitate, as does also

the graphic depiction of the opening scene.

The activities in Basic Instinct, she added, encouraged the different treatment of

women as a class, observing:

ie women say Ôno' but really mean Ôyes', and must be treated differently to give

them what they really want - slam them against the wall, rape them, violate

them, and they can't help themselves - they will respond with cries of delight.

The Group's other concerns, she concluded, were dealt with in its earlier complaint.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 1 September 1995

Sky explained that there had been some confusion about the various separate

complaints received about Basic Instinct given their identical format.

It stated that its response to the current complaint about the alleged rape scene was

identical to the one contained in its letter of 4 April 1995 of which it enclosed a copy

(see Appendix I) and its response to the complaint about the violence in the opening

scene was the same as its response of 18 April to Mr Pater (see Appendix VII).

It also enclosed a copy of a letter of the same date to Ms Findlay apologising for the

delay in responding to the issues raised by the Rape Prevention Group. It concluded

that letter:

We have now given serious consideration to all four of your complaints in the

context of the Broadcasting Act and the relevant Programme Standards. We do

not accept that either the Act or the Broadcasting Code for Sky Television has

been breached.

The Group's Final Comment - 13 September 1995

On the Group's behalf, Ms Findlay wrote:

We would like to make a final comment concerning the film Basic Instinct

screened on 20 March 1995. Our final comment is best expressed in the words

of a North Island school teacher to a jury last year.

"We made love, it's as simple as that."

The man's wife was not present at the court hearing. She committed suicide a

few weeks after her husband had raped her.

Ms Findlay concluded:

Basic Instinct mixes force, bondage, violence, mutilation and murder with sex.

It encourages a sick mentality of sexual violence. Its explicitness and graphic

depictions of violence with sex leaves intractable images in the minds of viewers,

many of whom are young men at a very impressionable age. It glamorises sexual

violence against women, perpetuating old myths and encouraging sexual assault

and discrimination against women. The film very clearly breaches numerous

television standards. It is a danger to the community and should not be allowed.

We ask the Broadcasting Standards Authority to fully uphold our complaint.

Appendix III

Rape Prevention Group's Third Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 11

April 1995

The Rape Prevention Group, through its co-ordinator Rhonda Findlay, complained to

Sky Network Television Ltd about the screening of Basic Instinct at 12.30am on 26

March. The complaint was identical to the one about the broadcast of Basic Instinct

on 20 March - see Appendix II.

As Sky did not respond within 60 working days , the complaint was referred to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority on 17 July 1995 under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 24 July 1995

The reply was identical to the letter of 17 July covered in Appendix II.

The Group's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28 July 1995

The Group's referral under s.8(1)(a) of the Act was identical to its letter dated 26 July

dealt with in Appendix II.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 1 September 1995

This is also identical to the material covered in Appendix II.

The Group's Final Comment - 18 September 1995

Pointing out that some rapists maintained that their victims consented and that it was

a good experience for the victims, Ms Findlay on the Group's behalf again argued that

Basic Instinct contributed to these erroneous messages.

Appendix IV

Rape Prevention Group's Fourth Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 15

April 1995

The Rape Prevention Group, through its co-ordinator Rhonda Findlay, complained to

Sky Network Television Ltd about the screening of Basic Instinct at 8.30pm on 31

March. The complaint was identical to the one about the broadcast of Basic Instinct

on 20 March - see Appendix II.

As Sky did not respond within 60 working days, the complaint was referred to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority on 25 July under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act

1989.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 1 September 1995

Sky's full response was contained in the letters to Ms Findlay and the Authority

dated 1 September and dealt with in Appendix II.

The Group's Final Comment - 14 September 1995

The Group combined its letter of referral (covered in Appendix II as its letter of 26

July) and submitted the same matters as its final comment on this complaint.

Appendix V

H Sutherland's Complaint to Sky Network Television

H Sutherland's complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd about the broadcast of

Basic Instinct at 8.30pm on 23 December was identical to that sent by the Rape

Prevention Group and covered in Appendix I.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was also identical - see Appendix I.

H Sutherland's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 March

1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, H Sutherland referred the complaint to the

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

Focussing on the small number of complaints that Sky had received, the complainant

argued that it indicated that most people thought that when a woman said "No", she

in fact meant "Yes".

She challenged the Authority to visit the country's mental institutions and, she

maintained, about 90% of the female patients were there because of the trauma

following sexual abuse. The people involved in rape crisis groups, she added, would

also report that many women were violently raped by their friends and acquaintances

who were conditioned by society to think that "No" meant "Yes".

H Sutherland concluded:

The statement by Sky that ÔThe general public is able to distinguish fiction from

fact in the context of these types of films' is ludicrous, I suggest that you also

ask some of the country's convicted rapists why they continued to rape their

victim despite them screaming for them to stop, before you evaluate this one.

By allowing this scene to be screened, Sky has blatantly breached the codes

referred to in my initial letter. Therefore I hope you will uphold this formal

complaint and deal with the matter accordingly.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 4 April 1995

Sky's response to the Group, it said, applied to all the complaints (which have been

summarised in Appendices V -X).

H Sutherland's Final Comment - 30 April 1995

Describing Sky's response as rude, arrogant and unprofessional, H Sutherland said

that there were three issues.

1. The scene, by saying that women "enjoy" rape, perpetuated a myth and

encouraged rape.

2. Sky's claim that the link between violence on the screen and copycat crime was

controversial ignored reality that human beings were easily influenced and learnt

by imitation in many circumstances.

3. What was the point of broadcasting codes, she asked, if they allowed scenes,

such as that to which objection was taken, to be screened?

Appendix VI

F Mawson's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 18 January 1995

Ms F Mawson's complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd about the broadcast of

Basic Instinct at 8.30pm on 23 December was identical to that sent by the Rape

Prevention Group and covered in Appendix I.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was also identical - see Appendix I.

Ms Mawson's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - Received 20

March 1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, Ms Mawson referred her complaint to the

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

also recorded that she had made two other complaints about two other screenings of

the film to which Sky had not yet replied.

Ms Mawson said she was dissatisfied as Sky had not addressed her concern regarding

the complaint that Sky promoted rape and sexual violence. Rather, she wrote, Sky's

reply appeared to excuse such behaviour.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 4 April 1995

Sky's response to the Group, it said applied to all the recent complaints (which have

been summarised in Appendices V - X).

Further Correspondence

In a further comment dated 19 October 1995, F Mawson stated that through working

as a staff nurse it was apparent that Sky was readily available to patients aged 12

years and above in the Christchurch Public Hospitals.

Appendix VII

J Pater's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 20 January 1995

J Pater of Christchurch complained to Sky Network Television Ltd about the

broadcast of Basic Instinct at 9.45pm on 31 December 1994.

The substance of the complaint focussed on the scene when the character Detective

Curran raped Dr Garner and was identical to the complaint prepared by the Rape

Prevention Group - Appendix I.

Upon completing that aspect of the complaint, Mr Pater then referred specifically to

the opening scene of the film which, he said, included "sex, bondage and murder".

That part of the film, he maintained, breached standards P9 and P21. The former was

contravened as the scene graphically illustrated a gruesome method of murder which

would be easy to imitate. Standard P21 was transgressed as the graphic use of

violence was designed to heighten the impact of the broadcast.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was identical to the letter sent to the Rape Prevention Group (dealt

with in Appendix I) and did not address Mr Pater's concerns about the opening

sequence.

Mr Pater's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 March 1995

In a letter signed by Johannes and Bev Pater, Mr Pater referred his complaint to the

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

Attaching a petition addressed to the Authority in support of his complaint

containing 20 signatures, Mr Pater expressed his dissatisfaction with Sky's reply. "It

has been proven", he wrote, "that TV influences people in their attitudes and actions".

Sky's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 4 and 18 April 1995

Sky's 4 April response to the Group, it said, applied to all the complaints about the

rape scene. In its later letter Sky addressed the complaint about the opening scene

which, it was claimed, had breached standards P9, P21 and P22.

First, referring to its comments in its 4 April letter to the group on the imitation point,

Sky did not accept that the scene invited imitation. Viewers, it added, were clearly

able to distinguish fact from fiction and were unlikely to murder someone with an

icepick as a result of viewing Basic Instinct. Standards P9 and P22 were not designed

to prevent the depiction of criminal behaviour but applied to films which, in effect,

contained step-by-step instructions. That did not apply, Sky insisted, to the present

case.

Turning to the complaint that standard P21 was contravened, Sky argued that it set

out a two stage test. First, it involved a consideration of whether the violence was

gratuitous, and secondly, whether it had been included for the purposes of heightened

impact. It continued:

In our view the violence contained in the opening scenes is not in any way

gratuitous. In any event, we submit that it has not been included for the

purposes of heightened impact.

Sky then explained that the entire opening scene was 1 minute 19 seconds in length

and the murder was only 8 seconds long. While undeniably violent, the violence was

not gratuitous given the context of the R18 mystery/thriller overall.

Outlining the storyline, Sky maintained that the icepick murder sequence was

absolutely critical to the plot, adding as the reason why it declined to uphold the

complaint:

This is not a case where the violence was unrelated to the plot or of marginal

relevance and was used simply for heightened impact or for other extraneous

purposes. The icepick murder is critical to the film as a whole. If this scene

was omitted much of what follows would make little sense to the viewer.

Mrs Pater's Final Comment - 22 April 1995

In the final comment accompanied by a further petition with 20 signatures and which

Bev Pater wrote on behalf of Johannes Pater and herself, she maintained that violent

crime had increased massively in the previous 30 years - since television had been

introduced. Expressing concern about the decline in moral standards depicted on

television, Ms Pater considered that Basic Instinct "would have to be one of the worst

examples".

Appendix VIII

S Johnson's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 20 January 1995

Stephanie Johnson of Christchurch complained to Sky Network Television Ltd about

the broadcast of Basic Instinct at 9.45pm on 31 December. Her complaint was

identical to that from J Pater - see Appendix VII.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was identical to the letter sent to the Rape Prevention Group (see

Appendix I) and did not address Ms Johnson's concerns about the opening sequence.

Ms Johnson's referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16 March

1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's reply, Ms Johnson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Arguing that television had an effect on people because of the copycat crimes which

occurred, she maintained that Sky and the other television broadcasters had a moral

responsibility to its viewers and to the public, who were the victims of crime.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 4 and 18 April 1995

Sky's response to the Group, it said, applied to all the complaints. Its later response

dealing with the violence in the opening scene is summarised in Appendix VII.

Appendix IX

M Johnson's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 23 January 1995

Murray Johnson of Christchurch complained to Sky Network Television Ltd about

the broadcast Basic Instinct at 9.45pm on 31 December. His complaint is identical to

that from J Pater - see Appendix VII.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was identical to the letter sent to the Rape Prevention Group (see

Appendix I) and did not address Mr Johnson's concerns about the opening sequence.

Mr Johnson's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16 March

1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's reply, Mr Johnson referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Mr Johnson described as indecent Sky's reference to the dialogue in the scene after the

rape sequence, adding:

... it has been my experience that many people watching films on television do

not always catch the underlying meaning or theme of that film.

That occurred, he continued, because of distractions in the household and the

attractions on other channels and the ability to control the material on the screen

which did not occur when watching a film at the movies. He added:

For these three reasons many films on television are not watched in their

entirety and therefore people may come away from the TV set mindful of

isolated portions of the film rather than the "point" which the film's director is

supposedly trying to make.

Therefore, he concluded, viewers might not have gathered the film's message or that

point.

Sky's Response to the Authority 4 and 18 April 1995

Sky's response to the Group, it said, applied to all complaints. Its later response

dealing with the violence issue in the opening scene is dealt with in Appendix VII.

Appendix X

S Findlay's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd - 18 January 1995

S Findlay's complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd about the broadcast of Basic

Instinct at 8.30pm on 23 December was identical to that sent by the Rape Prevention

Group - see Appendix I.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 February 1995

Sky's response was also identical.

S Findlay's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 March

1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's reply, S Findlay referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Sky's Response to the Authority -4 April 1955

Sky's response to the Group, it said, applied to all the complaints.