Media Sex Violence

In the British context, Media portrayals of sex and violence are essentially matters of personal taste, and as such it is vital that those who regulate such matters are properly accountable:

A Discussion

Sex, violence and the media are words that can cause distaste to individuals. There are those who believe that the increase of child/teen violence is caused by images that are imparted via the television and internet. The question is whether this is the cause and therefore tighter regulations should be applied or violence is now easier to recognise and broadcast. In the UK the regulation of the media is primarily via self-regulation and the choice of the viewer or reader unless the information that is imparted by the media is classed as obscene. Obscenity includes acts such as snuff films, child pornography, and animal cruelty etc, i.e. acts which are classed as criminal. Otherwise pornography and violence that does not lend to criminal acts are in the domain of the viewer and reader to choose, as well as the PCC to regulate in respect to individual’s privacy and good taste, i.e. to ensure responsible journalism and broadcasts of factual and fictional information media. As Feintuck argues that opening the media to self regulation and plurality in the media, which therefore leaves decision to intake the information to the individual reader/viewer, creates a balanced media and the social responsibility decides if the obscene should be viewed and if not viewed then there is no market for it to be broadcast:

While regulation with a sole objective of preserving public service values may inhibit market developments, and may indeed ultimately stifle plurality of media product, the public service rationale for media regulation is said to derive from a desire to ensure the availability of a range of quality products, especially in relation to the media's role of enhancing the viewer's or reader's view of the world. The public service approach is related to the 'social responsibility' model… acknowledging the crucial role played by the media in equipping individual citizens for participation in society, while also acknowledging that the media is hugely significant in terms of providing 'a cultural cohesion to the nation'.

The problems with this maybe the opening of the market for illegal acts, such as child porn or how to make bombs etc; however in truth the market would be so small and social conscience against such actions that such a fear should not arise. Also regulation of the media would definitely outlaw broadcasting of acts that are illegal and are against the social conscience; therefore creating a boundary for self-regulation of the media.

The PCC has been set up to ensure that the media does not step pass its boundaries, especially in protection of the privacy of the individual. There has been in the past cases which have been the result of irresponsible journalism, such as Paul Burrell v The Express on Sunday; Begum Aga Khan v Daily Mail; Sir Elton John v Sport; Blair v Mail on Sunday; and Kaye v Robertson. However these cases on the whole have been dealt with in a manner that was sufficient either by the current case-law or the PCC. Therefore so far media self-regulation is a modern form of law and ensures that the state does not encroach past their bounds into the freedom of expression. Those who are calling for statutory control are doing so in response to the lessened restrictions on the media, which have been introduced by the ECtHR and the HRA. In truth these statutory controls cannot have precedence over the ECtHR, even against arguments of sovereignty. Also the threat of statutory control has no effect on the media, because the principles that have been created from ECHR cases and the Reynolds case are just an example of what must be contained in the statute, because these are principles that uphold the ECHR. Also how can a statute control the media in responsible journalism, because the judiciary is not the expert but the members of the media? What is necessary is that the PCC and other regulatory bodies of the press are given more power to ensure responsible journalism is adhered to, because a statute is no more detailed and has no more knowledge than the industry.

The ECHR has been mentioned and the ECtHR would argue that the media is less likely to portray unwanted and illegal images of violence and sex as they are the watchdog of the public, i.e. it is their job to expose those persons who commit crimes of child pornography or incite terror. It is censorship in the state that creates the problems, such as not exposing public figures for their role in distorting the image of the social conscience, i.e. promoting morals in the media and with actions that contradict these morals in their private life, i.e. they condemn actions of unwanted pregnancies but commit such acts that lead to this consequence in private. The UK upholds the principles of privacy and breach of confidence as key to controlling the media. There are a series of important cases that the ECtHR have decided, whereby it has been stressed that freedom of expression and the press is necessary in a democratic society; that a national norm is not a good enough reason to derogate from this right; that the margin of appreciation is to interpreted narrowly; and the role of the press as a watchdog is extremely important, i.e. politicians should be exposed if they do not practice what they preach. The conflicting view of the ECtHR has been slowly instituted into UK law; with much resistance from the judiciary, however with the parliamentary move toward incorporating the ECHR this has not left a lot of options for the UK court. This has come to a head with the Reynolds v Times Newspaper Ltd whereby the role of the press has been recognized as the public watchdog, i.e. self-regulation and responsible journalism provides factual broadcasts and views that are diversified and not censored by politicians or the views of the oligarchy. Unfortunately the UK has not successfully adopted this method, especially in respect to cases that the word obscene is bandied about and used as an excuse to silence free speech and the media, i.e. it is the ECHR who believes that sex and violence is the purview of the viewer/reader and the UK courts and law still attempt to silence what it believes is obscene but not criminal as Hare reveals:

For example, the reasoning and result in the ProLife Alliance case would almost certainly have been different. The ban on offensive material was plainly content-based and its application to political expression should have attracted the most anxious judicial scrutiny. Further, as the examples cited in the Court of Appeal reveal, the standard of offensiveness was sufficiently subjective to shade into discrimination against viewpoints with which the broadcasters disagreed. Another recent and equally unsatisfactory decision on free speech is that of the Court of Appeal in Farrakhan. In this case, the Court upheld the Home Secretary's decision to exclude the applicant leader of the Nation of Islam from the country on the ground that his presence would not be conducive to the public good. The basis for the decision was that Farrakhan might address his followers in a manner likely to prejudice relations between the Muslim and Jewish communities. Such reasoning is plainly vulnerable to viewpoint-based analysis and would not survive strict scrutiny.

Bibliography

• Curran, J (2003) Power Without Responsibility: the Press, Broadcasting, and New Media in Britain (London: Routledge)
• Coleman F and McMurtie S (1995) Red Hot television: Domestic and International Legal Aspects of Regulation of Satellite Television European public Law 1(2)
• Feintuck, M (1995) Good News for the Media? Developments in Regulating Media Ownership in Britain and Europe European Public Law 1(459)
• Feintuck, M (1997) The UK Broadcasting Act 1996: A Holding Operation? European Public Law, 3(2)
• Feintuck (1997) Regulating the Media Revolution: In Search of Public Interest, JILT 1997(3)
• Feintuck, M (1998) Media Regulation, the Public Interest and the Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)
• Hare, 2005, Method And Objectivity In Free Speech Adjudication: Lessons From America, ICLQ 54(1)
• Hornle, 2005, Country of Origin Regulation in Cross-Border Media: One Step beyond the Freedom to Provide Services?ICLQ 54(1)
• Humphreys, P (1996) Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press)
• Jones, T (1992) Judicial Review of the ITC Public Law 372
• Geoffrey Robertson QC & Andrew Nicol QC (2002) Media Law (Fourth Edition) (London, Penguin)
• Philip Schlesinger (1998) Scotland's Parliament: Devolution, the Media and Political Culture, Arena Working Papers WP98/3
• Sallie Spilsbury (2000) Media Law (London, Cavendish Publishing)
• G. Teubner (1993) Law as an Autopoietic System, (Oxford, Blackwell)

Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.