Fred Langford - Internet Watch Foundation
The IWF was started in 1996. There was pressure from the Government to take action on child sexual abuse content on websites and the industry decided to pull together a self-regulatory body.
We also took on obscene adult content, so that's anything likely to deprave and corrupt – which is quite subjective. Because of the shifting landscape, we only act when the content is potentially illegal, and a legal precedent has been set. We don't see ourselves as censors of the internet. If it's criminal offline, it's criminal online. Simply inappropriate content isn't within our remit.
If a member of the public stumbles across it, they can report it on our website. The number of reports vary from 150 to over 1,000, though that would be an unusually busy day. We have four analysts and a hotline manager. We always assess whether the content falls foul of the law, and use UK sentencing guidelines. We have five different assessment levels: level five is an act of sadism or penetration of a child involving an animal, while level one is child images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.
We only ever issue a notice for the removal of the page if the content is hosted in the UK; if it's in another country we report it to that country's Inhope [an international umbrella organisation] hotline, or their law enforcement. If it's in the UK, then we contact the host provider and issue a notice for the removal of that page. It's usually legitimate providers who've had their services abused; they just don't have the correct security. Since the establishment of the IWF, the figures have really changed: originally, 18 per cent of sites that contained child sexual abuse content were in the UK; we're now down to less than 1 per cent.
We also provide a list of sites outside the UK which contain illegal content. This is an entirely voluntary list for internet service providers to download [so they can block sites]; 98 per cent of broadband customers in the UK are covered by this.
I've been here seven years, and before I worked for the Ministry of Defence, the American Air Force and as an internet engineer. It is a tough job. We have a full counselling service provided quarterly. There's always going to be content that shocks you, but it's not always what you would expect. You're expecting to see child sexual abuse – but you're not expecting a beheading, so that shocks you more.
Louisa Bolch - Advertising Standards Authority
The ASA judges adverts against the industry's codes and works out whether the advert needs to be withdrawn or whether it's OK. We uphold complaints on about 2,500 adverts a year and there are millions, so it's important to get a bit of perspective – that's a tiny, tiny proportion.
I've been on the council – there are 13 of us – for just over three years, but the ASA has been judging adverts for almost 50. There's a locked-down website where we will all look at adverts and comment on them in a forum. But there are some things that can't be resolved online, so we meet once a month for a day-long meeting and look at cases in really forensic detail.
We administer the codes written by the Committee of Advertising Practice. We've just been through a review – anyone can comment, but they also go to representative groups and ask for their input. And it's our Bible! You have to be able to hold [your decision] to account against the code – that's how the industry and the public can have some sense that the system works. It's definitely not good enough to go, 'I don't like it'; that really doesn't fly.
If an advert says, 'This product can do x' and this product can't do x, that's really straightforward. More interesting is the stuff around taste and decency, and harm and offence. We ask, is this something the majority are going to find offensive? Or is this something which is going to offend a much smaller number of people, but offend them so much that when you weigh in the balance the advertisers' right to freedom of expression versus the amount of offence it's caused, it's too great.
We don't withdraw adverts lightly; it's a serious business. The meetings can be good fun, but there's a lot at stake. If it's not clear cut, at the end of the day we have a voting mechanism.
My background is in television journalism. I always liked the governance aspects of working for a channel and I like knowing lots about lots of different things. It's kind of a perfect job for that. My dinner party conversation is now really rocking!
You never know what you're going to get – there was an advert which had farting in it a couple of years back, and a sizeable chunk of the British public don't really like bodily functions in adverts. You have to take it seriously, and we do, but you can spend 45 minutes discussing, in this context, whether farting is socially irresponsible or not ...
The most complained about advert was a KFC one, where KFC employees were singing while eating with their mouths open. Some people found it offensive, but being proportional, in the grand scheme of things – well, we didn't uphold.
Alison Marsden - Ofcom
Ofcom is the independent communications regulator; the area I work in is enforcing our rules on television and radio. Ofcom has a number of very specific legal duties which are set out in the Communications Act and we have transposed that into our code.
People feel very, very strongly about a number of issues. Complaints usually result from offensive language or the broadcast of a certain kind of material at a certain time of day – protection of children is a very key issue – and violence gets quite a lot of complaints, too. We're also doing lots of work around preventing harmful claims being broadcast – for instance, a small religious channel claiming certain products can cure cancer.
Ofcom isn't a censor; we don't have any powers before broadcast. We have to take into account freedom of expression – broadcasters' and audiences' rights to impart and receive material. On average we get about 25,000 complaints a year. But that can vary enormously; our most complained- about programme – Celebrity Big Brother in 2007 – got 45,000 complaints [of racism towards the contestant Shilpa Shetty].
Every single morning there is a triage meeting where we look at the complaints that have come in overnight. You come into the office, and watch adult material with your cup of morning coffee ... I'm not sure I could really be shocked anymore. Post-transmission, we can impose sanctions. These can be financial penalties, or even suspending or revoking an Ofcom licence to broadcast. With the scandal over premium-rate audience voting, we imposed fines of about £13m in total.
There's no prohibition on broadcasting material that is offensive – that's really important. A lot of complainants don't know that; they think it's their right not to be offended. What we require is that if you're going to broadcast potentially offensive material, it has to be justified by the editorial context. In most cases it's clear to us that the broadcaster has tried to comply with the rules.
After working in TV production for 10 years, I've been at Ofcom since 2007. It's a unique job, I love it! It's a fascinating insight into what offends people, but also I think we're doing an important job of protecting people.
Rebecca Mackay - British Board of Film Classification
I've been at the board for 17 years now. We're a good deal busier these days. There's more to watch and we're down to 14 examiners. A day's examining will comprise watching basically six hours of material: anything from brand new feature films – which we will watch in the cinema – to DVDs of TV series, straight to video releases, pornography...
We start from the 'ground floor' that everything is appropriate and acceptable for everyone to watch. That's the 'U'. As we watch, we have in our minds a series of issues, everything from language to sex, nudity, violence and drug use. We have our public guidelines and under those we know what is appropriate for each age category. Sometimes thing fall right on the borderline, and that's when we have to be quite rigorous in our analysis of the work and its potential audience.
Context is everything: one use of strong language, ie f***, will take a work to a '12' as parents don't want strong language in anything below that. The guidelines say only infrequent use is acceptable – but what does infrequent mean? With The King's Speech, there was a very narrow precedent for quite a number of uses of strong language, but because of the context and how it occurred, we felt on balance it was not going to impact in a way that was negative – whereas perhaps two or three really aggressive or directed uses of 'f***' would not be appropriate.
Every five years we do a huge public consultation exercise. Of course there have been shifts in what the public thinks is acceptable, and not always in the direction one would expect. We are much tougher on issues like sexual violence and violence against children now; but consenting sex, we're reasonably liberal about – the general public is not as prudish.
The only two films we've rejected in the past couple of years have been Grotesque, a Japanese horror with sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture, and Murder Set Pieces, an American feature about a psychopathic, sexual serial killer. Recently, we've rejected Human Centipede II.
I hate watching pornography, and at times I feel hugely dispirited. But mostly I just feel bloody lucky – I do love my job. And I still go to the cinema.Reuse content