Ofcom�s new broadcasting code was published today. Despite claiming to reduce the regulatory burden and to regulate with a lighter touch what is actually in the code demonstrates the exact opposite. The ITC program code ran to 51 pages. Ofcom�s broadcasting code is 88 pages long with an additional 46 pages of guidance.

Our evidence based regulator also intends to continue with the total censorship of much legally available content including sexually explicit R18 rated material despite its own research, also published today, that shows a lack of any real evidence that such material is harmful to anyone. This is the same material that is considered suitable for broadcast *free to air* in Spain. When the substantial protective measures that are already available such as mandatory PIN security are considered, the imposition of censorship by Ofcom is an insult to the intelligence of the viewing public and a sad reminder of the power of prejudice.

Whilst the issue of broadcasting of R18 content is but a tiny part of the code, this single decision clearly demonstrates Ofcom�s attitude to Freedom of expression, proportionality, consistency and evidence based regulation. The desire to regulate and control has won out against the need to deregulate. Although this theme is evident throughout the code, it is entirely absent from the rhetoric.

Whilst the majority of the public have no interest in adult services, those same people also respect the right of others to make up their own minds and to organise their own viewing and that of their families free from interference. As Salman Rushdie said �a free and civilized society should be judged by its willingness to accept pornography.� Whilst our society does respect the views of others our television regulator does not appear to hold the same view.

Ofcom suggest that they will �consider� whether to �review� lifting the R18 ban if future developments enable more secure protection. On the other hand they might not, and if past performance is anything to go by any future changes that might prompt Ofcom to consider reviewing anything will take years of snail paced contemplation. What�s more likely is that Ofcom will be overtaken by circumstances by European and Internet based services that will eventualy destroy domestic adult broadcasters and render Ofcom�s code irrelevant.

Perhaps of even greater concern than the imposition of all this restriction is the expectation by Ofcom that somehow this new code should be seen as supporting freedom of expression and viewer choice. It almost seems that Ofcom want to be congratulated for having laboured for eighteen months to create all this regulation.

In days gone by television was regulated by those who wanted certain kinds of content censored, and they weren�t afraid to admit to it. Nowadays censorship has a bad name and censors are treated with suspicion. Some thought that this might have encouraged a lighter touch in regulation, with less censorship and greater responsibility being granted to the consumer. Unfortunately this is not so, the desire to censor doesn�t have it�s roots in regulating what is generally accepted, but in the moral beliefs, political aspirations and need to control within those in authority. As such the desire to censor has not diminished, but the method of applying censorship has had to change. As it�s no longer acceptable to be seen as to openly censor legally available content, censorship is being disguised with a variety of subterfuges.

Ofcom are keen to point out that they are not censors. They claim that censorship involves prior restraint which they do not do. Broadcasters point out that they are constrained by Ofcom�s codes and Government simply say that such things are a matter for Ofcom. Meanwhile an entire classification of content is being suppressed.

Ofcom are being economical with the truth when they claim that they do not censor, whilst they do not examine individual films before transmission, what they do is far worse, they censor by category. Rule 1.25 in the new code states that �BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast.� This represents the collective censorship by prior restraint of an entire BBFC classification. Ofcom have censored more than five thousand titles with a single sentence.

Ofcom�s role in this area is made much easier by the fact that there is a small but vociferous minority who favour censorship of this kind and that the vast majority of people have little interest in the material that is being censored. It is to this majority that Ofcom make there case about light touch, proportionate, evidence based regulation and many people without the detailed knowledge of these matters will simply accept this. Ofcom want to be seen as champions of free expression by the masses whilst operating a policy of draconian censorship against certain minorities.

To censor legally available material intended for adults on the basis of the opinion of twelve of the great and good in the content board is unacceptable, to then pretend that you show a high regard for freedom of expression is intolerable and shows an arrogant disregard for the views of consumers in who�s interests Ofcom is supposed to operate.

If we are to have censorship foisted upon us then let�s at least be open and honest about it.