11 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
Throughout history and across the world, talking about sex has been banned in various forms. Films with racy sex scenes in have been censored, books that talk a little too openly about the birds and the bees have been taken out of print, and even Betty Boop has been the subject of a censor.
But the latest ban on sex comes from an unusual place, as the Malaysian Government plan to ban an Islamic sex manual, amid fears it may cause religious confusion.
The book, which was written by the leader of controversial Islamic society the Obedient Wives Club, is entitled “Islamic Sex, fighting Jews to return Islamic sex to the world”, outlines the “physical and spiritual way” in which women should approach sex.
The Obedient Wives Club says it intends to “curb social ills like prostitution, domestic violence, human trafficking and abandoned babies”, all of which they attribute to unfulfilled sexual needs, hence the reason for the book.
Though it was intended only to be read by its 800 club members, Malaysian Authorities have cracked down, and people found in possession of the book could be fined up to 5,000 ringgit (£995), whilst anyone who makes copies for sale could be imprisoned for three years and fined 20,000 ringgit.
The government’s Islamic Affairs Department is said to have studied the manual and recommended a ban on the grounds that it may confuse Malaysian Muslims about what constitutes acceptable religious teaching.
Last week, Malaysia also placed a blanket ban on sexuality rights festival Seksualiti Merdeka (sexuality independence). The annual festival aims to promote human rights and acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community through workshops, talks and film screenings. It aims to enable Malaysians “to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence for their sexual orientations and their gender identities”, but a police ban was imposed amid fears the festival could create “disharmony, enmity and disturb public order”.
Police allegedly received 154 reports which opposed the festival, prompting Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar to say that the public clearly wanted the police to act firmly against the organisers. Bakar added “whatever we want to do, we must take into account cultural and religious sensitivities and the multi-ethnic communities in the country.”
Not talking about sex isn’t just restricted to Malaysia — it’s a global taboo. In 1992, Madonna’s book “Sex” , which was designed to look like a condom packet, and filled with pop star’s self professed fantasies, was subject to massive controversy.
The book was banned in Japan, due to its risqué photographs, whilst in France a Catholic group called The Future Of Culture tried to get all copies of the book destroyed for corrupting the French youth with pornography. Other organisations across the globe tried to boycott the book, and many book stores refused to sell it.
But despite the controversy, Sex sold 1.5 million copies whilst it was still in print. In August 2011,” was declared the most sought after out-of-print book in the US.
Even before the controversy of Madonna, or the Obedient Wives Club, literature that was deemed as erotic was subject to widespread bans. “The Life and adventures of Miss Fanny Hill,” by John Cleland (reprinted as “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”) was one of the very first pieces of “prose pornography”, published in 1748 and is deemed one of the most prosecuted and banned books in history. Written in the form of letters from the 15 year-old Fanny Hill to an unknown woman, defending her lifestyle as a prostitute, the book caused outrage and was banned for obscenity.
And sex censorship hit the headlines again this week, as a provocative perfume advert campaign from Marc Jacobs featuring Dakota Fanning was banned by the British Advertising Standards Authority for “sexualising children.” Fanning, who is 17, looks much younger in the Lolita style ad campaign which featured in London Evening Standard’s ES Magazine and Sunday Times Style magazine. Wearing a short skirt, Fanning holds the perfume bottle between her thighs in a way that was perceived to be “sexually provocative” by the ASA, with the strapline “Oh, Lola!”, the name of the perfume.
But it’s interesting to consider where the line is drawn — did the sexual exploits of Fanny Hill cross the line into obscenity? Was Madonna’s sex book too blue to be read by the public? Does the Obedient Wives Club give a confusing message to young Muslims? Does a young-looking Dakota Fanning need to be censored? And when will the age old taboo of talking openly about sex become old fashioned?
1 Nov 2011 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
The celebrity trend of taking out injunctions to prevent publication has calmed, according to some of Britain’s top editors. Giving evidence at the joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions yesterday Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor; Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye; John Witherow, editor of the Sunday Times and Jonathan Grun from the Press Association, explained that he felt the balance between freedom of expression and privacy has been restored.
Speaking at the committee, Hislop called the lull in injunctions an “outbreak of sanity,” whilst John Witherow said superinjunctions had been “scattered around like confetti,” and added that the mood now seems to have changed. Hislop attributed the decline to a number of “spectacular own goals” and said the “worrying” trend had caused a “real chilling effect” on free speech. Witherow agreed, and cited the recent case of Jeremy Clarkson as a deterrent.
Following the recent press scandals, Grun explained: “All of the furore we’ve had with super injunctions and phone hacking has created a distorted lens on the media.”
Grun added: “It does misrepresent the day-to-day activities of hundreds of newsrooms across the country. In newsrooms across the country journalists take decisions beneath the radar but those decisions tend to guard the privacy of what you would describe as ordinary people.”
When asked if declining sales was the reason behind the publication of sensationalist articles, all of the editors disagreed. Hislop said “printing the truth is the way to sell papers,” whilst Grun advised that “accuracy underpins everything we do at PA.” Rusbridger added that using “commercial consideration” when deciding whether to run a story is dangerous.
He explained: “If you’re going to lessen standards or become lax because you think that’s a route to better sales, it’s a slippery slope.”
Similarly, the editors all agreed that defining the public interest for editorial decisions was clear, with Hislop adding that it comes down to “common sense.”
Ian Hislop suggested that “the libel business dried up, and privacy became the next avenue,” whilst Rusbridger named the breach of confidence as his biggest issue as a newspaper editor, describing it as an “ever present threat” which can hit you, commenting “I’m much more worried about confidence.”
But the editors added that it was unclear how many injunctions still stood. Witherow said: “We may never know how many stories have not been covered, or how many people who have been up to no good will sleep a little easier.”
Earlier in the day, Joshua Rozenberg, a legal commentator and journalist; Professor Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications at Westminster University and Professor Brian Cathcart, founder of the Hacked Off campaign and professor of Journalism at Kingston University, also gave their evidence to the committee.
Alice Purkiss is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship
5 Oct 2011 | Uncategorized
Key witnesses at the House of Lords Communication Committee believe that education is the key to the future of investigative journalism in an increasingly difficult media environment.
Speaking at the inquiry into the future of investigative journalism, key witnesses John Lloyd and David Levy from the Reuters Institute and John Mair, a senior lecturer in broadcasting at Coventry University suggested that reform of the journalism education system in the UK could be the way to move journalism forward in an ever evolving landscape.
John Lloyd explained that new forms of crime “are furiously complex” and as such a need for an improved education of journalism is crucial. Lloyd said that contemporary journalism needs better explaining and understanding skills than ever before, along with a wide range of new skills and an understanding of new technology.
John Mair commented that journalism education in the UK is “a mess”, and suggested that every journalism course should have an element of investigate journalism training, but added:
“Investigative journalists are a strange breed. They’re accurate, they have a sense of mischief, and they’re bloody determined. I’m not sure you can teach that.”
Levy explained the importance of investigative journalism in society, commenting that it “uncovers things people don’t want to be uncovered,” but stressed that there was a need to balance what was in the public interest with what interests the public. Levy also said that in the process of uncovering those things, deception was sometimes necessary, and spoke of an opportunity for journalism which “covers a wider spectrum of organisation,” suggesting that more organisations could benefit from closer scrutiny.
Describing the MP’s expenses revelations as “classic investigation,” Mair said that the scandal was “admirably” exposed by the Daily Telegraph.
Lloyd stressed that the public interest is the core of investigation. He supported the view that measures taken to uncover investigative journalism stories are retrospectively justified, claiming that the checks and balances that are in place are such that it is possible to determine the extent of the public interest. Throughout the evidence session, the witnesses stressed the importance of balancing the damage done through investigation proportionately with the public interest.
The witnesses suggested that “mutual” journalism, a result of the internet, between professionals and citizens could be the future of the trade. Mair added that the changes in the media sphere had changed dramatically, comparing citizen journalism as we know it now to the reader’s letters sections of the past.
Lloyd added that journalism must build into the area in which profits can be realised, citing investigative journalism as a key aspect of this. He described the MP’s expenses scandal as “an uninhibited search for scandalous information”, and went on to suggest that unless this kind of journalism is being undertaken, the plurality of the British press will shrink.
The committee raised concerns regarding “retrospective justification” of investigative journalism, and the witnesses explained that justification is the only kind there is, but explained that editors and journalists must be prepared to face the consequences of their investigations and publications. Lloyd explained in relation to the phone hacking case in particular, “the end justified the means.”
The session was completed with a statement from Mair: “Great investigations keep us all honest.”
15 Sep 2011 | Uncategorized
Following accusations that social media were used to play a key role in the social unrest in August, representatives from Research in Motion, Twitter and Facebook came under the spotlight at the Commons Home Affairs select committee this afternoon.
Stephen Bates, Managing Director of BlackBerry’s Research in Motion, Richard Allen, Director of Policy at Facebook and Alexander McGilvray, who is responsible for public policy at Twitter were questioned by the committee, chaired by MP Keith Vaz, regarding the role of social media in the riots which spread across the country in August, and the trio insisted that all three platforms were used as a force for good.
In the midst of the unrest, calls were made to shut down social networking, particularly BlackBerry messenger, as it was suggested that this was being used to organise violence. Cutting off Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry messenger in times of unrest seems no different to the censoring this kind of media experiences in China and oppressive countries over the world.
The committee heard that should it be necessary, all three of the representatives of the social media, who work within frameworks to condone with the law, would not resist closing down social media, but did not feel that it would be necessary.
Bates, Allen and McGilvray all said that throughout the unrest in August, social media were used in a positive way – to contact family and friends to advise that users were safe, to help clean-up in the wake of the riots, and perhaps most importantly as a tool of communication, used to quell and correct rumours. McGilvray said that most of the “retweets” that occurred during and after the riots were corrections of inaccurate tweets, spreading rumours and misinformation.
The representatives from the social media stressed that as long as technology keeps advancing, the police will have to continue to adapt their methods to deal with the situations. Allen compared the developments of social media with the creation of the car – “It took the police time to catch up when thieves began using cars, the same is happening now.”
A key issue addressed by the committee was responsibility. Bates admitted that BlackBerry messenger had been used in a malicious way to organise crime, but stressed the need for balance when addressing the issue.
Allen explained that their focus on identification meant there was an accountability relating to misuse of the platform but said that there were only a handful of cases where this had occurred during the riots. McGilvray said “People come to Twitter to say things publicly and that means there is a different kind of usage.” Allen and Bates advised that they were involved with communications with the police, and McGilvray advised that as Twitter is a public forum, it was not necessary on their behalf.
McGilvray said that to lock down social media in times of social unrest would be “horrible,” stressing once again the good things that arose from the use of social media in the times of unrest.
Keith Vaz advised that there may be times when closing down social media was necessary, asking “Why should the government not use the powers to close down these networks if there is mass disorder and this is the only way to stop it happening.”
