TAG | SBS’s ‘Obscene Machines’ too robotically obscene for ACMA |
|
|
| by Alex Zaharov-Reutt | |
| Monday, 25 February 2008 | |
|
Page 1 of 2 Originally aired on 3 June 2005 and then re-broadcast on 13 April 2007, Obscene Machines is a television program described by SBS as a program which “examines how technology is being employed by some people to artificially achieve sexual gratification, to support physically challenged relationships, and to assist people who may be lonely or who have relationship difficulties. The documentary explores this topic from a number of perspectives”. SBS goes onto to say that ‘Obscene Machines’ “contains interviews with self styled theorists on human sexuality and technology, users of sex machines and sex dolls and the creators and manufacturers of machines and dolls”. SBS received a viewer’s complaint which “alleged that the program was not suitable for viewing on television as it included ‘extremely offensive’ depictions of sex and nudity”. ACMA’s investigation report goes on to say that: “The complainant specifically referred to two segments in the program which she considered exceeded the MA 15+ classification category. Not satisfied with SBS’s response to the complaint, the complainant forwarded the matter to ACMA for investigation”. ACMA advised that: “Under Section 151(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act), ACMA must investigate the complaint if it is a matter that is covered by time SBS Codes of Practice 2006 and the person has not received a response from SBS within 60 days, or theperson has received a response but considers it to be inadequate”. ACMA has advised it is their view that “in relation to the broadcast of Obscene Machines on 13 April 2007, SBS breached Code 4 (Television Classification Code) of the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 (the Codes) by not complying with the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games for programs classified MA 15+, as set out in Appendix A of the Codes”. So, what are the specific parts of ‘Obscene Machines’ that were just too obscene for the regulators? Please read onto page 2. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
