Current Issues - Articles

Media prurience encourages censorship

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:58:55 +0000

Mountains out of molehills

Mirror - Quaker Oats advert
Windy's eccentric Uncle Gruber, a naturist, comes to stay. ... modesty protected by strategically placed breakfast items ... But in one scene ... viewers catch a glimpse of what appears to be Uncle Gruber's Plasticine genitals. The appararent slip has been leapt on by the UK media, with the Daily Mirror saying that "TV viewers nearly choked on their breakfasts", although it is understood that Quaker has not received any complaints.
From an article in Brand Republic, 2 Nov 2006.

Note how "Quaker had no complaints" equates to "TV viewers nearly choked on their breakfasts" in Mirror speak. No doubt there was a similarly apocalyptic headline.

Comparison of censors

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:49:23 +0000

It is instructive to compare censors and how the attitudes of censors have changed.
If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.
The No Anorexia campaign posters were reported with varying degrees of accuracy and responsibility. The evidence indicates that censoring the body increases the problem of body image disorders. In 2007 the BBC showed most of the poster. In 2010 they followed their usual policy of only showing the top.
Isabella Caro, the subject of these photographs, said "To see my tailbone like an open wound, I show myself as I am. I'm not beautiful, my hair is ruined and I know I will never have long hair again. I've lost several teeth," she said of her looks on the billboard. "My skin is dry. My breasts have fallen. No young girl wants to look like a skeleton." She died not long after.
How can the readers of either BBC article "see [her] tailbone like an open wound". Yet clearly these were what she wanted the world to see to make her point.

BBC reporting
BBC 2007	BBC 2010

We were sure that the BBC was becoming more prudish and this reporting supports that. Quite why the Jonathan Ross incident, completely unacceptable as it was, should require an almighty lurch towards prudery has never been explained.
Other broadcasters were not so afraid to let Isabella make her point as forcibly as possible.

MTV reporting

Government censorship

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:09:53 +0000

Government, national, local and the various organisations that they are responsible for are major censors.
If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.

Councils, museums, schools etc
Some examples to give a flavour of what is going on:

Evesham
"MEMBERS of an Evesham art group have accused a headteacher of “unnecessary censorship” after he ordered their drawings to be removed from an exhibition. ... [they] were upset that not only had their work been removed, but also that they were not consulted on the decision. "
The headmaster refused to talk to the reporter. Worcester Times, 19 Nov 2009

Harrow
"ARTISTS are walking out en masse from Harrow Arts Centre in a storm over the censorship of five paintings. ... paintings depicting nude figures removed from an exhibition the night before it was due to open. Artists from across the borough have reacted in horror"
Harrow Times, 22nd October 2008

Manchester Museum
"Last week, the unwrapped mummy of ... were covered. .. in order that the human remains be treated with respect ...". What about showing the Ancient Egyptians respect? It was a largely nude culture, or at least nudity common place, throughout much of the time known as Ancient Egyptian. What about showing humans respect?

Natural History Museum
"... Flipside Vision is dismayed that their annual Calendar of Climate Change, has this year been declined for sale by the Natural History Museum in London due to artistic images which contain natural nudity.
The calendar is a valuable educational resource for schools, colleges, as well as a beautiful environmentally-friendly calendar for the home and office."
Tom Nelson, 22 Oct 2008.
And there I was thinking that the Natural History museum was supposed to tell us honestly about natural history and that humans were part of natural history. Silly me.

North Norfolk District Council
Put paintings on display in the council offices and then told the artist to take them away and find somewhere else to display his work.

Redditch Library
"Modern Classical Nude by Dermot Hannon ... three of the pictures - depicting a naked woman - were deemed unsuitable for children."
Redditch Standard 2004.
Judging from the description in the article, utter nonsense.

Police

This sculpture was censored by the Metropolitan Police. They threatened the Art Gallery with the Indecent Displays Act. The BBC headline was Artist's naked ambition censored and then the BBC censored the photograph! Weren't the BBC daring? Sculpture nipples on view but what is below the waist must remain a mystery. As usual the BBC give no indication that they have censored the photograph.

It comes to something when the police censor rag dolls. It was on display for days, tens of thousands of people must have walked past, then one person complained and the full weight of the law swung into action.

One and Other, the art work on the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square, was a classic example of how people in authority often get it wrong. British Naturism wrote to the Metropolitan Police suggesting that their officers would get the law wrong unless correctly briefed. There was no reply and presumably the letter was ignored. Exactly as we expected an officer did get it wrong, a fuss resulted, and the following day the police backed down. They provided a letter to the organisers for them to show to any officer who got it wrong.
At least two of the people who were nude on the plinth are BN members. This is Lady Godiva, no not Frankie the BN treasurer, a different Lady Godiva, but also a BN member.
The One and Other was filmed and some of it is available on the Sky Arts Website. We suggest watching at least the introductory item, Naked Cover Up and Lady Godiva.

ANTONY GORMLEY'S ONE AND OTHER 100 DAY HIGHLIGHT SHOW. A good general introduction and some interesting facts.
FINAL HIGHLIGHTS
NAKED COVER UP. This is the censorship that we refer to above. Instructions from the police relayed by one of the organisers. Note the audience reaction.
LADY GODIVA. BN member. She had a whole serious of placards to get the message across. It was a great shame that she didn't get a better time slot.
TOPLESS DANCER. The police warned her to "be sensible" and obviously they were suffering from some of the usual myths but was it justified censorship? If she had stepped over the police officer's "line" would she have harmed any children?
NUDES.

If you find others that should be included in this list, please let us know.

Transport for London

This article in the Independent on censorship by Transport for London is worth a read. Note the theme running through the article. No objective basis for much of the censorship, inconsistency, considerable damage to those censored and no redress.
The poster advertising a Royal Academy exhibition was at first censored. It was only when large parts of the media and the art establishment made a considerable fuss that Transport for London came to their senses. Guess what, the world did not come to an end. Whilst I was standing on the platform several hundred people must have walked past. Not one ran screaming at the sight of the poster. Indeed the reaction was notable for the total lack of reaction.
Unfortunately very few people have the resources and backing to take on Transport for London like this. They have no prospect of redress.

Big business censorship

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:34:24 +0000

Big business is almost entirely unaccountable. Some of the worst offenders are US corporations exporting harmful attitudes from the USA to the rest of the world. We suspect that some of them are driven by religious prejudices largely alien to Europe.
If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.

Amazon
Amazon randomly censoring ... The important point of this article is not what Amazon censored, but how arbitrary, unaccountable and inconsistent that censorship was.

Apple

The picture is part of the response by Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid, to the decision by Apple to censor them (translate) The vandal on the step ladder is Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. Meanwhile the equivalent UK publication, The Sun, is acceptable to Apple. Presumably Apple are less worried that a Danish newspaper (1/3 million readers) will sue them than one the size of The Sun (8 million readers).
British fashion magazine Dazed & Confused has made an iPad version of their magazine. Internally, they call it the "Iran Edition" because they have to censor any nudity, no matter how innocent it is. Gizmodo 5 May 2010.
Again note the recurring theme running through these accounts. Arbitrary, unaccountable and an arrogant disregard for the values of anyone except themselves. There are so many examples of Apple censoring major European media that we can not possibly list them all.

ASDA
This was ASDA, the other supermarkets vary a bit.

Baby's bottom censored by store Asda
A spokesman for Asda said they "don't do nudity" at any age.
A mother who wanted to give a birthday cake to her son featuring a photo of him as a baby was forced to have it censored because it showed his bottom.
Gail Jordan, 41, had gone to Asda in Liscard, Wirral, on 13 June with the photo of her 21-year-old son David taken when he was five months old.
BBC, 26 June 2008

Facebook silly

Facebook is one of the worst offenders. They have an appalling record of arbitrary censorship of positive body image. Take this photograph of Kylie Minogue with teddy bear and microphone, it got banned for nudity!
Censoring a silly teddy bear photograph is rather silly but censoring positive body image and censoring body knowledge is deadly serious, literally.

Facebook cancer

This advert from the Toronto Health Board was refused. Late detection of cancer kills people. How many deaths have Facebook got on their conscience?
As one eminent oncologist said, "People die from embarrassment. Is it acceptable that people should die from Facebook's embarrassment?

Facebook breast feeding
It is well established that fewer babies die (and generally have fewer health problems) when breast fed. Facebook censored these photographs of paintings no less than four times. When an enormous fuss resulted Facebook claimed that they "had made a mistake". Really? The same mistake four times?

but this next picture is acceptable, it complies with the rules.

This website has collected some of the photographs banned by Facebook.
It seems like every few days we hear of yet another Facebook "mistake". This time is was a very large breast feeding support group. Deleted twice, emails ignored, only reinstated when the media became involved.
An example from the UK. What right do Facebook have to impose their American prejudices on us, the British?

Fedex
They refused to distribute a magazine because "they might deliver it to a school by mistake".

Flikr
Better than many but still inconsistent, unaccountable and lacking an objective basis.

Google
Google make searching for the word "nudity" harder by turning off some features of their search engine. That made the research for this page more difficult. We have never heard of any justification for it, any consultation on it or indeed any mention of it from Google. They are yet another US corporation imposing their prudery on the rest of the world and just as unaccountable as all the others.
Google have been very quick to make capital from their opposition to censorship in China but in the western world they are one of the censors, and not just in obvious ways. For example the social networking site, Ning was forced to remove the communities that Google disaproved of. This is what Tech Crunch had to say:

On Tuesday Ning changed its long standing policy … “our ad partners aren’t big fans of the adult networks.”
As far as I can tell, at this time Ning has only one advertising partner - Google. Google won’t put adsense on sites that contain “Pornography, adult, or mature content,” so Ning was at risk of being banned by Google despite the fact that only a very small portion of the networks on Ning are adult oriented.

Initially it looked as if naturist sites would be able to continue but before long they closed.
Google own YouTube and it also has become more prudish. As usual no rational justification, no consultation, no independent appeal and no consideration of what causes harm and what produces benefit. Or if there was they kept very quiet about it. The attitude appears to be "we don't like it so you can't do it" and never mind the harm that results.

Menzies
Together with WHSmith Wholesale they control near enough the entire system for distributing periodicals to newsagents. If they won't distribute it then the cost of distribution rockets and the publishers are at the mercy of companies such as Fedex. See above. Their polices may be sensible but does anybody know what they are? Are they accountable to anyone?

Media censorship

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:52:12 +0000

If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.

Advertising Standards Authority
The following quotes from an excellent Newswatch article make a lot of very important points. Note how the out of date attitudes of the regulator results in a tiny minority dictating what the rest of us are allowed to see.
LA Fitness had a series of adverts banned.

Four-in-five people believe Britain is "behind the times" when showing nudity in the media ...
The research was commissioned by gym chain LA Fitness after a new advert featuring naked members of the public in innocent athletic poses were rejected by the Advertising Standards Authority.
But 97.6% of the 2,500 people shown the banned 'Enjoy Your Body' ad campaign by independent market research firm tickbox.net did not find the advert offensive at all.
...
"Our research clearly shows that the reaction of the establishment is out of tune with those of the vast majority of the public today. It is like living in the Victorian era all over again."
...
"The campaign is promoting the body in a positive and natural way, something we don’t see very often. The naked body should be celebrated, especially when it is shown in such a positive context."
Newswatch, 26 Apr 2006

There is no sign that the Advertising Standards Authority has taken the slightest bit of notice.

BBC
The BBC has a published policy on censoring nudity.

"Nudity before the watershed or in online content likely to appeal to a significant proportion of children, or suggestions of nudity on radio when children are particularly likely to be in our audience, must be justified by the context. Nudity, whether actual or suggested, has the potential to offend and care must be taken in pre-watershed content, especially in promotional material which does not carry content information."

This is a considerably more draconian policy than when we last looked at it, a couple of years ago, but there has been no consultation that we know of. In practice it seems that near nothing can justify nudity to the BBC, especially before 9pm.
The BBC has page after page about the importance of honesty but that counts for very little where nudity is concerned. Travel programmes don't show tops free sunbathing and even a mention of a naturist beach is so rare as to be remarkable. The BBC web site censors nudity, it even censors high status artworks, but the BBC lacks the honesty and courage to admit to it.
In March 2011 the BBC was criticised for broadcasting a programme that was heavily biased in favour of increasing censorship and seriously deficient in balance and objectivity.

BBC Michaelangelo Crucifix
This is what it really looks like. Wikipedia.

and this is the BBC version. Note the lack of any indication on the BBC web site that they have cropped Jesus. It is religious and artistic vandalism.

BBC portrait of Sir Sean Connery
Again we will start by showing the full version. Telegraph

and now the BBC version. Again, the BBC give no indication that they have censored the painting.

BBC drama
It is not just factual content, drama is also censored. For example they axed the nude ending from 'This Life' reunion in December 2006.

BBC honesty
The censorship is worrying enough, but the lack of the honesty to admit to it is a betrayal of everything that the BBC is supposed to stand for.
There are numerous other examples. Particularly disturbing are the BBC articles reporting the harm done by censorship, which the BBC has then censored! There is a number of examples reported elsewhere on this page.

Cinema Advertising Association

The CAA censors all adverts shown in cinemas. They decided that an advert encouraging people to vote must be cut. It showed a nipple for a fraction of a second. It was shown uncut in every other country in Europe except Ireland where it was not shown at all.
It is not coincidence that the UK has amongst the worst breast feeding rates in Europe. Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association Director, Mark Jones said:

'This is bordering on the Pythonesque. Millions of women each day breastfeed their babies. It is perfectly natural human behaviour. Everything should be done to encourage women to breastfeed their babies, not to create some artificial stigma about it.'
'These censors seem to be living in a Victorian age when we covered piano legs so as not to cause offence. They are completely divorced from reality.'

The BBC article has much the same words as all the other reports but the photograph sets it apart. Even in the context of the widespread and obviously justified criticism of the CAA the BBC was ashamed to show a nipple. They used this completely unrelated to picture, one that did not show even the smallest part of a breast.

Daily Mail
Self censorship is one of the most pernicious forms of censorship.

... London's Evening Standard ran the story about Sheridan Ritchie, the naturist who'll be posing naked at the Chelsea flower show ... snap of Ms Ritchie watering some flowers and showing off her left bosom and its protruding nipple.

The story was too good for the Mail not to run ... using the same shot as its sister paper.

... Mail's Middle England readers were treated to a ... deformed version ... Ms Ritchie's bosom was still there, but her extended nipple had dropped off somewhere between the picture desk and final proofs.

Press Gazette Ltd, 25 May 2006

Sheridan Ritchie is a BN member.

Censorship overview

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:12:03 +0000

Censorship is a largely secret activity that results in widespread and often serious harm.
As might be expected we have long had misgivings about some censorship. When we started to research the effects of censorship those concerns were found to be more than justified. Most of the harm comes from unintended consequences but ignorance and lack of thought is no excuse. It is particularly inexcusable because it is children and young people who bear the brunt of that harm. Prudery is child abuse. It really is that simple.
Even some of the strongest advocates of censorship admit that there is no real evidence to support their views. It is pure prejudice and the harm that they are causing is unforgivable. Policy must be based on objective fact, not the emotive prejudice of some adults.
There are currently moves to censor the internet. We wrote to the government and in March 2011 we received a reply. It used a lot of words to say very little but one paragraph stood out. They claimed that restricting access to parts of the internet is not censorship! Money may be tight but can't they afford a dictionary? We will shortly add a page providing further information.
If you can make a contribution to this page please email us.

Links
British Naturism Briefing Notes.

Censorship
Health and Well-being of Young People
European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act - In preparation.
Equality Act

The Equality Act and the Human Rights Act are a fast moving area. Further documents are to be expected.

Vocabulary
It is important to distinguish between three fundamentally different types of material. Many of the problems arising from censorship stem from a failure to make these distinctions.

Nudity - a state of dress characterised by the absence of clothing. That is the only significance.
Sex - realistic sexual activity in a natural and wholesome context. A part of ordinary life.
Pornography - portrayals of sexual activity which are unrealistic or set in an unwholesome context.

Public Attitudes
Most censorship is driven by a few misguided people making a lot of noise. The surveys paint a very clear picture. These figures are taken from one conducted by Radio Times in October 2008.

On TV do you think there's:
	Yes %	No %
Too much violence?	74	26
Too much swearing?	69	31
Too much sex?	52	48
Too much nudity?	40	60

Which offends you most?
	%
Violence	45
Swearing	32
Sex	10
Nudity	3
Other	10

There is a very clear pattern, which is repeated in every other study or survey that we have seen, but precious little evidence that the censors are taking any notice. Some misguided soul shouts "think of the children" and everyone jumps without stopping to think, and it is the children who suffer most of the consequences.

Human Rights
Article 8: Family Life - Family life is denied if families are not allowed to decide what their children can watch, read or do. A prude can prevent their children from watching a programme. Parents with a more wholesome attitude towards the body can not allow their children to watch a programme that is not shown.
Article 9: Religion and Belief - Right to religion and belief includes the right to manifest that belief. Part of manifesting that belief is being allowed to communicate about it.
Article 10: Freedom of Expression - Freedom of Expression is meaningless if the means of expression are denied.
Article 11: Free assembly and association - An important aspect is denied if social networking hosts are unable to host Naturism communities.
Protocol 1, Article 2: Education

"You have a right ... to an effective education." Censors are denying young people access to knowledge essential to their health and well-being.
"ensures a fair and proper treatment of minority views."

Harm and benefit
There is not a shred of evidence that censorship of nudity is necessary in order to prevent harm. Without evidence of harm, the excuses used in an attempt to justify censorship are indistinguishable from prejudice.
If anybody can provide a justification for censoring nudity, and that justification is not ultimately rooted in prejudice, then we would be very interested to hear of it. It will be a first and the author will be able to claim the $1,000 prize which has been available for several years without even an applicant.
There is strong evidence that body shame directly and indirectly causes widespread and considerable harm. It ranges from the person with avoidable diabetes injecting themselves for life due to not being breast fed, to the teenager ashamed to ask about contraception, to the person too embarrassed to see the doctor with the symptoms of cancer of some part of the body that society has deemed unclean, embarrassing, or beyond the pale. See Children and Young People on the British Naturism briefing notes page for a more detailed consideration.
Censorship has been vastly more effective at preventing young people from accessing objective, realistic and wholesome portrayals of the body and sexuality than it has at preventing them from accessing pornography. Is pornography really how young people should find out how people look and behave? Health education can not possibly compete, or at least not whilst the attitudes encouraged by the censors cause it to be so severely constrained.
The effects are well established and the mechanisms well understood but there is incredible reluctance to act according to the evidence.
Censorship shapes attitudes and attitudes have consequences. Ignoring those consequences is unforgivable. Are we really going to let the Neo-Victorians cause so much harm to the young people of this country?

The Censors
There is an enormous number of censors, few of whom are subject to any sort of control. Large corporations, often US owned near monopolies, are deciding what we in the UK and Europe are allowed to read, watch and hear. They are unaccountable and our own censors here in the UK are often little better.

Defenders against censorship
The defenders have an uphill battle. Nobody can complain about even the worst censorship if they do not know about it and most censorship is carefully hidden. Even when it is known about, most censors are completely unaccountable to anyone.

Index on Censorship Prominent international group.
Open Rights Group Opposing current government plans to censor the internet and snoop on what you are doing.
Censor Watch
Melon Farmers
Feminists against Censorship. This is from an article in The Register.
Avedon Carol, founding member of Feminists against Censorship, told us: "It [the censorship] is obscene."
She went on: “There’s a famous quote from Marilyn Chambers who points out that in American video and TV you can show a breast being cut or shot but you can’t show it being kissed."
"Its not about protecting anyone from sex: its about making sex dirty and keeping it dirty. They may pretend that they are not being anti-sex – but they are and there is no reason that sex should be stigmatised in that way. Sex isn’t the problem."

Conclusions

Most censorship is secretive.
Most censorship is hidden.
Most censors are largely or wholly unaccountable.
Many censors are imposing alien values on other cultures.
Most censorship is driven by personal or perceived popular prejudice.

Consideration of harm is almost invariably simplistic and inadequate.
It is easy to complain about something that a person sees or hears. It is impossible to complain about hidden censorship.
Over-simplistic, myth and prejudice driven, restrictions on freedom of expression are resulting in widespread and often serious harm. It is older children and young adults who bear the brunt of that harm.
Some censorship is necessary but the present system has serious shortcomings which result in unacceptable levels of widespread and all too often serious harm.
It is impracticable for every individual censor to adequately evaluate the balance of harm and benefit. Equally it is almost always impracticable for those who are censored to challenge the decisions of the censors.

Recommendations
Censorship must be accountable. To achieve that there must be:

An end to secrecy. When material is censored then both the public accessing that material and the authors of that material must be informed.
A realistic means of appeal.
A duty to give evidence of harm priority over evidence of offence.
Monopolies and near monopolies should be under a greater duty to act responsibly.

A central body should be created to:

Establish and disseminate best practice
Commission and evaluate research
Provide an appeals process
Provide a model scheme

Censors following a model scheme should be free from any further obligation. Those who do not should provide the funding for the central body.

Final thought
Is it really more acceptable to cause death, illness and life long disadvantage through carelessness over public or corporate censorship than it is through dangerous driving? Be careless with a gun and kill a child it is called manslaughter. Be careless with censorship and encourage attitudes whic result in children dying, what is that?

The prudification of society - an enormous thre...

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:27:33 +0000

Nudity everywhere, beaches, clubs, TV, film, magazines, absolutely everywhere is under a serious and new threat.

Body-knowledge, body-honesty and body-acceptance, anything to do with the human body is under attack like never before, Mary Whitehouse included. The government, or more accurately an influential part of the government, are pursuing the "prudification of society" like no government that I can remember and they are being a lot more subtle about it than Mary Whitehouse. Much of the activity is behind closed doors and the little that is visible has been spun to make it look like protection for children.

Typically their tactics work like this:

I don't like it (don't usually say that) so
it must be bad for children.
Children must be protected
Ban it!
How dare you object!!!!
You pervert (by implication)

Notice that there are no facts or evidence involved. They state their prejudices as if they are facts and appeal to emotion. They press the protection of children button. To make it more plausible they commission a report or two from "independent experts". Independent experts that they have chosen.

Society does not stand still. It changes, and the campaign to prudify society is having alarming success. The prudification will do immense harm, mainly to children and young people, but facts, evidence and logic have never counted for much with the prejudiced. Naturism is feeling the effects:

Increased prosecutions for Naturism
Increased problems with Social Services
Increased problems hiring facilities
Loss of some of the very few local authority nude health spa facilities

The consequences for beaches and other public places

More difficult to get new beaches designated
More likely to lose designated beaches
More dangerous to use traditional beaches
More dangerous to use any beach

The consequences for clubs

More difficult to attract families,
More difficult to attract people working in education, child care or the health service, or any other job requiring a CRB check and that is a lot. (eg that includes taxi driver and meter reader),
More difficult to attract anyone,
Club Web sites will be classified as pornography and to look at them everyone, household by household, will have sign up for pornography.