SBS breaches classification code
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
The Australian Media and Communications Authority has found SBS in breach of its own Codes of Practice when it screened the UK documentary, Obscene Machines.
The doco, which aired first in June 2005 and repeated in April 2007, looked at sex dolls and other forms of technology for sexual gratification.
ACMA ruled SBS exceeded the MA15+ classification when it aired the doco at 10pm on 13 April 2007.
In ACMA’s view the nature and frequency of nudity and sexual references had “a cumulative intensity greater than strong. ACMA considered that one segment in particular contained depictions of sexual activity with a level of detail and degree of explicitness that exceeded the MA15+ requirement that sexual activity be implied.”
The subject of the ACMA investigation were two segments. The first it described as “approximately 7 minutes and 30 seconds in duration. It features an elderly man’s use of a sex doll. The man explains and demonstrates how he uses a life-sized doll, which he calls Emma, to facilitate his sexual needs and erotic fantasies. He indicates that Emma is based on an 18 year-old woman he married when he was aged 53 years.”
Of the second segment, ACMA described it as “approximately 2 minutes and 24 seconds in duration and features a sex scene in which a naked woman is apparently being penetrated by a mechanical dildo. This segment includes several visuals of sexual activity, which are inter-cut with interviews with the creator of the machine and a sexologist, who provide commentary on the nature of the machine and human sexuality, respectively”.
SBS asserted the documentary had aired in the UK on free-to-air television, and in France, Italy and Holland on pay television, providing a rationale for why the segments in question did not breach the MA 15+ classification code.
ACMA has written to SBS, drawing its attention to the seriousness of broadcasting material that exceeds the MA15+ level. The National Classification Scheme, on which the SBS system of program classification is based, requires that material classified MA15+ is suitable for viewers 15 years or older.
SBS has advised that it would remove the documentary from its schedule and inform its classification department of the ACMA finding.
Source: ACMA
19 Responses
David, no argument from me about Benny Hinn and especially the accursed Guthy Renker at all (you can always spot the nigh-owls through their bitter hatred for Guthy Renker! 🙂
Re Skins: it got its R classification on DVD for “High Level Drug Use” with no mention at all of sex or nudity. It was classified on January 2nd for the DVD distributor (Madman) just before the show went to air with an MA rating, chosen voluntarily by SBS.
Hey!!! Im a fan of Pro active! If Puffy likes it its good enough for anyone 🙂
In the end, if SBS had classified the show as adults only, none of this would have happaned, it dont just help us, its helps them cover their own butts too…
Skins is implied sex anyway….
Think the Joe / Dree thread is starting to mimic itself, guys.
Anyway Guthy Renker and Benny Hinn are way more offensive.
In defense of the PG Mortal Kombat movie, I’m sure extent of violence was a cut lip and the only swear word was a###hole which may have been edited out anyway.
All the blood/decapitation violence was only in some versions of the game series.
It was a kid’s karate movie that was misunderstood by many parents because of it being sensationalised by tabloid current affair programs! Some things never change! 🙂
Dree: I meant it was irrelevant in a personal sense. If a program had swearing I personally would feel uncomfortable watching it with my 80 year old mother – even though she wouldn’t care about it anyway!
I do think ratings are relevant in informing the consumer/parent on their programming choices.
My wife works with children and from a cursory survey from parent meets over the years that most have trouble enough navigating the remote than figure out or know any lock out system!
I do believe some of the late night content that is rated MA15+ on cable serve as pure explicit titillation. I think it’s hypocritical to have two different standards applied to the classification.
I’m not going to loose sleep over it – unless if it starts effecting my favourite shows of course! It did concern me the comments above about the show Skins (which I haven’t got a chance to watch yet) could potentially go the same way.
Well with a million plus user of foxtel, some having box sets in the kids play room as well as their living room, of course people are using it! And how many of those million plus do you know?? 🙂
And saying its not suitable for kids usually means its adults only.
And what do you mean its of no concern about ratings?
The rating given to a show is the recomendation given to make sure parents dont let their kids watch anything unsuitable!
The whole point is that you say its okay for your 15 year old to watch a show because the ratings okay, and then have the program contain people having simulated graphic sex with machines and watching old men talk about there sexual practices with dolls molded on their former wives while wondering if certain “fluids” have the right consistency, the rating is the only thing you have to go on if its suitable for certain age groups with out seeing the show!
Long ago I worked in Child Care and taking the 10-15 year olds to the movies would be a tricky thing as most parents were very concerned that they wernt being let into movies that were above the PG rating. And even then I remember the movie Mortal Kombat had a PG rating and it contained decapitations and strong violence, the organization I worked for back then received a lot of flack over that.
Back to the point, the things contained in the show should not have been classified as suitable for 15 year olds, Im sure the docco wasnt aimed at 15-16 or 17 year olds and was most defiantly for an adult audience.
By saying its not relevant means that ratings have no bearing at all and if you dont pick up on the odd show for mis-classification the ratings system ceases to be relevant and has no credabilty.
I have no issue with the show, but I have a kid, and this show wasnt for kids.
An Adults Only rating or whatever the equivalent is would have been more suitable.
Dree: Whether or not I’d be personally comfortable viewing it with my 16 year old son or 80 year old mother is irrelevant.
The rating informs me whether or not I’d find it suitable vieweing and I belive the content was described well by it’s MA15+ classification.
About the comedy channel programming, i’m pretty certain it only gives a MA15+ warning just like the commercial channels. (I’ve never seen anything rated R)
And I’m yet to meet anyone who actually uses, that parental lockout! 🙂
I’m not sure about Comedy channels classifications, I’m sure David knows, but they announce at the begining of nearly every show that the Comedy Channel isn’t for “kids” and to use the Parental Lock out system.
So 18+ I’m guessing, that would have been a more suitable classification for this show.
So would you let your 15 year old son/daughter watch it?
Watch it with them?
A nice evening with the family? lol
It was on the Comedy Channel because it is a joke, and is just a bit of titillation.
Let Comedy Channel serve that junk up, and let SBS stick to the fantastic doccos!!
I certainly don’t think “anything” should be on tv, I just think this show was within the guidelines for a MA15+ show. I thought the message and information was pretty clear – in fact I never would have thought such a world existed.
If this was shown on lifestyle or the comedy channel is their MA15+ classification any different?
Speaking of which, I do believe the comedy channel do have a number of MA15+ shows where there is no question the content is there for pure titillation!
Sure you can argue that we wouldn’t miss it if it wasn’t there – but this decision can potentially effect any other future show.
Of course SBS can simply make petty edits to conform, but I really don’t think should have to. Especially if it only took one complaint to do it. It makes you consider if the complaint was “genuine” in the first place.
I hardly think this will warrant SBS banning all such “racey” material.
I’ve seen this Docco on the Comedy Channel a few times as well as the Lifestyle Channel.
If something like this disapeared from SBS’s screens, I dont think we’d even notice. And so what? Its not like were missing out on anything groundbreaking and informative. If people really wanna see stuff like this they always have the net.
And as for showing it to a 15-16 year old, I wouldnt let my kid watch this at that age. Some of it bordered on Soft Core Porn. Being open minded to educational materials is one thing, but there was nothing educational or informative about this.
The point is, Dree, that the complaint came from ONE person, and that simply offending one person is enough to forever have content like this banned and cost the network thousands of dollars.
Sure, I think the show was a little distaste full, it wasnt a test.
Being opened minded isnt about just having any old thing on TV and if anyone whinges they are right wing conservative monkey evangelists.
I dont believe in censorship in art when its being informative and the subject matter is important enough to change lives. But this was just a shock docco, show some old pervs and a bit of sex n nudity without any clear message and it really is just a blatant attack of the senses hoping to spark some sort of hippie like response.
I dont care about the nudity and what not, it was just the way it insulted the viewers intelligence by suggesting that this docco was something we really needed to know.
I’m just as liberal as the next person but I don’t think “anything” should be on TV.
I saw the show and found the second scene mentioned a little disturbing but certainly didn’t think it should have been censored.
How are the people chosen to rate such material? How does this compare to the UK system?
Dree: Try some constructive commentry 🙂
(To add)
That is one huge ultra ultra left wing rant there from above person.
holy cow.
This “acumulative intensity” is such a cop-out argument. The documentary certainly wasn’t titilating.
Does that mean two MA15+ shows screen after one another could accumulate the offensiveness?. So if the show was split into parts it would be acceptable? Does having commercials lessen the intensity of the show?
If you’re going to watch a show about sex toys then you would have a good idea what you’re getting into. Censoring it only serves to piss off those that want to view the program as intended.
SBS should rescreen the show but insert a still frame indicating where it’s been censored and how to contact the ACMA to complain!
I agree with Joe on that. I saw this on its first airing, and found it both fascinating and sad. Appropriate warning was given at the start of the program. In my opinion, MA15+ was a perfectly valid rating for the doco. The whole “cumulative intensity” argument is totally bogus.
I presume next someone will realise that the DVD set of season 1 of “Skins” carries an R18+ rating for “high level drug use” (yawn) and therefore whichever episode or episodes contained that “offending” material should not have screened on SBS. Yet it has.
Or how about when they aired the Lars Von Trier film “The Idiots” uncut in its R18+ glory with real, unsimulated penetration right there on the screen, not out of camera range as it was in this doco.
Or maybe these trainspotter wannabe whistle-blowers who gleefully jump all over this sort of thing should just turn off their TVs and go back to whatever organised religion they spawned from.
I caught this show when it was first on and it certainly opened my eyes to the use of sex toys by those who mostly have social issues in getting a partner.
I certainly didn’t find the material “attractive” sexually in fact it was rather sad watching desperate people after intimacy that wouldn’t reject them like others had.
What I find disturbing is that it took only one complaint on a repeat screening to bring on this breach. What is more disturbing is the person found it so offensive that they continued to watch and record the details down.
Surely if it can screen uncut on free to air UK and European screens, Aussies should be able to be mature enough to handle it too?
Looks like we need some new blood within the ACMA!